For the past few months, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies has been working on identifying some of the most significant trends in technology innovation.  Published yesterday by WEF, these represent ten areas that we as a council felt are likely to shake things up over the next few years in terms of their economic and social impact.

The plan is to update this assessment on an annual basis

Here’s the list:

Informatics for adding value to information

The quantity of information now available to individuals and organizations is unprecedented in human history, and the rate of information generation continues to grow exponentially. Yet, the sheer volume of information is in danger of creating more noise than value, and as a result limiting its effective use. Innovations in how information is organized, mined and processed hold the key to filtering out the noise and using the growing wealth of global information to address emerging challenges.

Synthetic biology and metabolic engineering

The natural world is a testament to the vast potential inherent in the genetic code at the core of all living organisms. Rapid advances in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering are allowing biologists and engineers to tap into this potential in unprecedented ways, enabling the development of new biological processes and organisms that are designed to serve specific purposes – whether converting biomass to chemicals, fuels and materials, producing new therapeutic drugs or protecting the body against harm.

Green Revolution 2.0 – technologies for increased food and biomass

Artificial fertilizers are one of the main achievements of modern chemistry, enabling unprecedented increases in crop production yield. Yet, the growing global demand for healthy and nutritious food is threatening to outstrip energy, water and land resources. By integrating advances across the biological and physical sciences, the new green revolution holds the promise of further increasing crop production yields, minimizing environmental impact, reducing energy and water dependence, and decreasing the carbon footprint.

Nanoscale design of materials

The increasing demand on natural resources requires unprecedented gains in efficiency. Nanostructured materials with tailored properties, designed and engineered at the molecular scale, are already showing novel and unique features that will usher in the next clean energy revolution, reduce our dependence on depleting natural resources, and increase atom-efficiency manufacturing and processing.

Systems biology and computational modelling/simulation of chemical and biological systems

For improved healthcare and bio-based manufacturing, it is essential to understand how biology and chemistry work together. Systems biology and computational modelling and simulation are playing increasingly important roles in designing therapeutics, materials and processes that are highly efficient in achieving their design goals, while minimally impacting on human health and the environment.

Utilization of carbon dioxide as a resource

Carbon is at the heart of all life on earth. Yet, managing carbon dioxide releases is one of the greatest social, political and economic challenges of our time. An emerging innovative approach to carbon dioxide management involves transforming it from a liability to a resource. Novel catalysts, based on nanostructured materials, can potentially transform carbon dioxide to high value hydrocarbons and other carbon-containing molecules, which could be used as new building blocks for the chemical industry as cleaner and more sustainable alternatives to petrochemicals.

Wireless power

Society is deeply reliant on electrically powered devices. Yet, a significant limitation in their continued development and utility is the need to be attached to the electricity grid by wire – either permanently or through frequent battery recharging. Emerging approaches to wireless power transmission will free electrical devices from having to be physically plugged in, and are poised to have as significant an impact on personal electronics as Wi-Fi had on Internet use.

High energy density power systems

Better batteries are essential if the next generation of clean energy technologies are to be realized. A number of emerging technologies are coming together to lay the foundation for advanced electrical energy storage and use, including the development of nanostructured electrodes, solid electrolysis and rapid-power delivery from novel supercapacitors based on carbon-based nanomaterials. These technologies will provide the energy density and power needed to supercharge the next generation of clean energy technologies.

Personalized medicine, nutrition and disease prevention

As the global population exceeds 7 billion people – all hoping for a long and healthy life – conventional approaches to ensuring good health are becoming less and less tenable, spurred on by growing demands, dwindling resources and increasing costs. Advances in areas such as genomics, proteomics and metabolomics are now opening up the possibility of tailoring medicine, nutrition and disease prevention to the individual. Together with emerging technologies like synthetic biology and nanotechnology, they are laying the foundation for a revolution in healthcare and well-being that will be less resource intensive and more targeted to individual needs.

Enhanced education technology

New approaches are needed to meet the challenge of educating a growing young population and providing the skills that are essential to the knowledge economy. This is especially the case in today’s rapidly evolving and hyperconnected globalized society. Personalized IT-based approaches to education are emerging that allow learner-centred education, critical thinking development and creativity. Rapid developments in social media, open courseware and ubiquitous access to the Internet are facilitating outside classroom and continuous education.

Last semester, speculative designer James King worked with myself and a small group of science and public health students at the University of Michigan to explore how a fusion of science and creative art can lead to new insights and modes of communication.  The exercise was part of the A World of Surprises project – a project James is working on as the Witt Artist in residence at the UM School of Art and Design.

Part of the aim was to take these science-grounded students out of their comfort zone, expose them to some radical new ideas and perspectives, and see what happens.

The results were impressive!  Once the students realized that they weren’t bound by the rigid limitations of their science education, they became enthused over using creative techniques to tell science-grounded stories that connected with people on a far deeper level than just the facts would allow.

Today the group presented the fruits of their final assignment: to produce a piece of creative work that captures the tension – in narrative form – between imagined catastrophic risks and experienced mundane risks. As a group, we were interested in the tension between the catastrophic consequences often imagined to arise from human endeavors, and the mundane reality that often develops.

I’ll try to showcase all of the projects over the next few weeks.  They were all, in their own way, quite brilliant.  Coming up in future posts there will be:

• The Tale of Rhino Banana (a brilliant story of a technological breakthrough that runs up against public resistance);
• Salutary lessons from the struggle between evil and the divine in the middle ages;
• A visual juxtaposition of comparative risks related to Fukushima; and
• A new-future story of technological sophistication and mundane consequences.

(I’ll add the links as they are posted – The Tale of Rhino Banana will be up first)

James will be back in Ann Arbor for the culmination of the A World Of Surprises project in March – stay tuned on that.

]]> http://2020science.org/2012/02/04/exploring-speculated-catastrophe-and-mundane-reality/feed/ 2 http://2020science.org/2011/06/04/responsible-development-of-unobtanium/ http://2020science.org/2011/06/04/responsible-development-of-unobtanium/#comments Sat, 04 Jun 2011 14:56:58 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4235

I thought I’d post this spoof presentation for the fun of it on the responsible development of “unobtainium”, which seems to have some remarkable similarities with some other emerging technologies:

Friends of the Earth have just released a new report challenging claims that nanotechnology will lead to greener, more energy-efficient technologies, lower-impact technologies.

I’ve only had the chance to skim through the report so far, and so don’t have detailed comments on it.  But on my initial skim a number of things struck me:

• The report is written from a specific perspective that questions the validity of claims made of nanotechnology – especially that it will “deliver energy technologies that are efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sound”
• It is pretty comprehensive, covering nanotechnology and solar energy, wind energy, hydrogen energy, oil and gas extraction, batteries, supercapacitors, nanocoatings and insulators, catalysis and reinforced parts for airplanes and cars.
• However, it doesn’t cover all nano-applications in the energy sector.  Two examples are the use of heterogeneous catalysts in vehicle exhausts and to reduce the energy overheads of a multitude of processes, the use of nanomaterials to develop more efficient power lines.
• The report also tends to focus on areas where it is easier to construct position statements challenging statements on the positive use of nanomaterials.
• Nevertheless, it appears to be a significant and well-written counterbalance to publications that promote the benefits of nanotechnology in the energy sector without deep and critical evaluation of the pros and cons of the technology.

Are the issues raised valid and in need of further exploration?  It’s worth reading for yourself to decide.  I’ve included the executive summary below – the full report (88 pages) is available here. Agree or disagree?  Feel free to comment below!

In a world increasingly concerned about climate change, resource depletion, pollution and water shortages, nanotechnology has been much heralded as a new environmental saviour. Proponents have claimed that nanotechnology will deliver energy technologies that are efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sound. They predict that highly precise nanoman- ufacturing and the use of smaller quantities of potent nanomaterials will break the tie between economic activity and resource use. In short, it is argued that nanotechnology will enable ongoing economic growth and the expansion of consumer culture at a vastly reduced environmental cost.

In this report, for the first time, Friends of the Earth puts the ‘green’ claims of industry under the microscope. Our investigation reveals that the nanotechnology industry has over-promised and under-delivered. Many of the claims made regarding nanotechnology’s environmental performance, and breakthroughs touted by companies claiming to be near market, are not matched by reality. Worse, the energy and environmental costs of the growing nano industry are far higher than expected.

We also reveal that despite their green rhetoric, governments in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Japan and Saudi Arabia are using public funds to develop nanotechnology to find and extract more oil and gas. The world’s biggest petrochemical companies, including Halliburton, Shell, BP America, Exxon Mobil and Petrobras have established a joint consortium to fund research to increase oil extraction.

The performance of nano-based renewables has been considerably less than predicted. Efficiency of solar energy conversion by nano solar panels is still about 10 percent behind that achieved by silicon panels. The technical challenges of bringing renewable energy laboratory achievements to market have been prohibitive in many instances. The United States President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology states that in 2009 only one percent of global nanotechnology-based products came from the energy and environmental sector.
The energy demands and environmental impacts of manufacturing nanomaterials are unexpectedly high. Manufacturing carbon nanofibers requires 13 to 50 times the energy required to manufacture smelting aluminium, and 95-360 times the energy to make steel, on an equal mass basis. A team of United States researchers has concluded that single walled carbon nanotubes may be “one of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind”.

Due to the large energy demands of manufacturing nanomaterials, even some nano applications in the energy saving sector will come at a net energy cost. For example even though strengthening windmill blades with carbon nanofibers would make the blades lighter, because of the energy required to manufacture the nanoblades, early life cycle analysis shows that it could be more energy efficient to use conventional windmill blades.

Much-touted nano developments in the hydrogen sector are at a very early stage. It is improbable that cars powered by renewable energy generated hydrogen will be on the roads in the next ten or twenty years – the period in which emissions cuts are critical. In the meantime, development of hydrogen cars entrenches reliance on fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen.

Most nanoproducts are not designed for the energy sector and will come at a net energy cost. Super strong nano golf clubs, wrinkle disguising nanocosmetics, and colour-enhanced television screens take a large quantity of energy to produce, while offering no environmental savings. Such nanoproducts greatly outnumber applications in which nano could deliver net energy savings.

The environmental demands of nanomanufacturing are higher than that of conventional materials. Nanomanufacturing is characterised by very high use of water and solvents. Large quantities of hazardous substances are used or generated as byproducts. Only one tenth of one percent of materials used to manufacture nanoproducts found in computers and electronic goods are contained in the final products. That is, 99.9 percent of materials used in manufacturing become waste products.

Despite the serious uncertainties, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that some nanomaterials used in energy generation, storage and efficiency applications can pose health and environmental risks. Carbon nanotubes are touted for use in electronics, energy applications, and specialty car and plane parts. However, early research shows that some forms of nanotubes can cause mesothelioma, the deadly cancer associated with asbestos exposure.

The release of nanomaterials to the environment could also result in accelerated generation of potent greenhouse gas emissions. Antibacterial nano silver is used widely in clothing, textiles, cleaning products, personal care products and surface coatings. Yet preliminary study shows that when nano silver is exposed to sludge, similar to that found in typical waste water treatment plants, four times the typical level of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is released

Nanotechnology is not an unqualified environmental saviour nor will its widespread use in everything from socks to face creams enable us to pursue ‘business as usual’ while substantively reducing our environmental footprint. At best, such claims can be interpreted as the result of wishful thinking on the part of proponents; at worst they can be seen as misleading greenwash.

Nanotechnology is a powerful technology that has the potential to deliver novel approaches to the methods by which we harness, use, and store energy. Nevertheless, Friends of the Earth warns that overall, this technology will come at a huge energy and broader environmental cost. Nanotechnology may ultimately facilitate the next wave of expansion of the global economy, deepening our reliance on fossil fuels and existing hazardous chemicals, while introducing a new generation of hazards. Further, it may transform and integrate ever-more parts of nature into our systems of production and consumption.

Update 11/17/10:  Replaced local report links with link to FOE report web-page

Back in the mists of time, I was approached with a crazy proposition – would I help co-edit a book on nanotechnologies regulation!  In a moment of weakness I said yes, and a little more than two and a half years later, the book is finally about to hit the shelves.

I actually think the resulting International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies rather a useful, coherent and engaging collection of chapters – my co-editors Di Bowman and Graeme Hodge did a wonderful job encouraging a bunch of top thinkers in the field to write under occasionally whimsical but always relevant titles.

To whet your appetite prior to the book’s release sometime in November, here’s a sneak peak at the contents:

PART I:    Concepts and Foundations

1.    Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies

Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard

2.    Philosophy of technoscience in the regime of vigilance

Alfred Nordmann

3.    Tracing and disputing the story of nanotechnology

Chris Toumey

4.    The age of regulatory governance and nanotechnologies

Roger Brownsword

PART II:    Frameworks for Regulating Nanotechnologies

5.    Nanotechnology captured

John Miles

6.    The scientific basis for regulating nanotechnologies

David Williams

7.    The current risk assessment paradigm in relation to the regulation of nanotechnologies

Qasim Chaudhry, Hans Bouwmeester and Rolf F. Hertel

8.    Regulating risk: the bigger picture

Karinne Ludlow and Peter Binks

9.    Producing safety or managing risks? How regulatory paradigms affect insurability

Thomas K. Epprecht

PART III:    Case Studies in Regulating Nanotechnologies and Nano-Products

10.    The evolving nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety landscape: A business perspective

Oliver Tassinari, Jurron Bradley and Michael Holman

11.    Regulation of carbon nanotubes and other high aspect ratio nanoparticles: approaching this challenge from the perspective of asbestos

Robert J. Aitken, Sheona Peters, Alan D Jones and Vicki Stone

12.    Approaching the nanoregulation problem in chemicals legislation in the EU and US

Markus Widmer and Christoph Meili

13.    A good foundation? Regulatory oversight of nanotechnologies using cosmetics as a case study

Geert van Calster and Diana M. Bowman

14.    Therapeutic products: regulating drugs and medical devices

Rogério Sá Gaspar

15.    Regulatory perspectives on nanotechnologies in foods and food contact materials

Anna Gergely, Qasim Chaudhry and Diana M. Bowman

16.    Regulation of nanoscale materials under media-specific environmental laws

Linda Breggin and John Pendergrass

17.    Military applications: special conditions for regulation

Jürgen Altmann

18.    Regulating nanotechnology through intellectual property rights

Gregory N. Mandel

PART IV:    The Future Regulatory Landscape

19.    The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the ‘benefits versus risks’ framing of nanotech innovation

Georgia Miller and Gyorgy Scrinis

20.    Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears

Christoph Meili and Markus Widmer

21.    The role of risk management frameworks and certification bodies

Thorsten Weidl, Gerhard Klein and Rolf Zöllner

22.    Risk governance in the field of nanotechnologies: core challenges of an integrative approach

Ortwin Renn and Antje Grobe

23.    International coordination and cooperation: the next agenda in nanomaterials regulation

Robert Falkner, Linda Breggin, Nico Jaspers, John Pendergrass and Read Porter

24.    Transnational regulation of nanotechnology: reality or romanticism?

Kenneth W. Abbott, Douglas J. Sylvester and Gary E. Marchant

25.    From novel materials to next generation nanotechnology: a new approach to regulating the products of nanotechnology

J. Clarence Davies

PART V:    Conclusion

26.    Conclusions: triggers, gaps, risks and trust

Andrew D. Maynard, Diana M. Bowman and Graeme A. Hodge

More information on the International Handbook on Regulating Technologies can be found here.  The anticipated publication date is late November.

Complete the following:

Setting:

A well known and sometimes off-beat technology commentator explores new breakthroughs on a popular TV science and tech show.

Story:

1. Spiders’ silk is incredibly strong, but in short supply (ever tried harvesting silk from a spider?).
2. So why not take the gene responsible for making spider silk, and splice it into a goat?
3. The result: goats that produce milk laced with spider silk-protein.
4. All you have to do then is extract the protein from the milk and spin it into silk and hey presto – a plentiful supply of a super-strong, incredibly versatile, “natural” material.

How should the story end?

Take Our Poll

There’s a serious point to this question, which I’ll come back to later.  For now though, I’m intrigued as to how people think the story should conclude – remembering this is a TV show for a broad audience.

The spider/goat stuff is real btw – check out this snippet from the US National Science Foundation.

[Update 11/2/10 - the follow-up blog to this piece has just been posted]

The immediate lessons from the Deepwater Horizon disaster are pretty obvious – we (or at least somebody) messed up!  But what about the less-obvious lessons – especially those concerning technology innovation and how it’s handled?  The Fall 2010 issue of Findings – the University of Michigan School of Public Health Alumni magazine – contains a short piece addressing just this question.  As is increasingly becoming my habit, here’s an earlier draft of that article.  As well as providing a little more information that the published piece does, it allows an interesting comparison between a good draft (what I think works) and an expertly edited final article (what the editor thinks will work).  As usual, I was more than impressed by how a good editor can sharpen a piece up.

In today’s increasingly crowded, interconnected and resource-constrained world, we are more dependent on technology innovation than at any previous time in human history.  By 2050, over nine billion people will be placing unprecedented demands on the earth’s resources – a demand that will only be met through developing and using new technologies.

Yet technology innovation comes with its own challenges.  The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico provides a sobering reminder of what can go wrong when we trust in technology without investing sufficiently in the future.  Devastating as this disaster has been though, it is only one small example of the challenges we will face as a global society as resources become scarcer, demands become greater, and our technological reach threatens to exceed our ability to handle it safely.

If a sustainable future is to be built on the effective development and use of technology innovation, we need to rethink how we reap the benefits of technology.  The full impact of the Deepwater Horizon spill will take years to evaluate.  But underlying the immediate impacts of the disaster is a story of how technology innovation failed, and the lessons that can be learned from this failure; not just so human and environmental disasters of this magnitude can be avoided in the future, but also so that we begin understand more fully how to develop and use new technologies more responsibly.

The technology being used on the Deepwater Horizon rig was at the cutting edge of innovation.  Drilling at depths of 5000 feet below the surface of the sea – far beyond the reach of direct human intervention – the operation was pushing the bounds of the possible.  Until the disaster, this was a story of technology innovation allowing us to tap previously inaccessible oil reserves.  But there is a less obvious story here – one of emerging technologies that could have been used to mitigate the impacts of the spill, if only there had been sufficient forethought and investment to develop them to the point of usability before they were needed.

As it is, the use of advanced technologies associated with the Deepwater Horizon rig failed on three counts:  The potential consequences of using an unproven technology were not explored sufficiently; there was inadequate investment in understanding, avoiding and mitigating risks upstream; and there was a lack of foresight in developing new technologies to manage the consequences of failure.  Greater foresight, investment and upstream action on each of these three counts could have helped avoid or reduce the impact of the ensuing disaster.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the drilling technology being used and the potentially severe consequences of errors, more realistic scenario planning would have helped prepare for low probability but high impact risks.  Coupled to this, more strategic research into the potential risks associated with deepwater drilling, together with greater stakeholder engagement, could have helped industry, regulators and others more effectively manage the consequences of the disaster.  And more proactive up-front investment in remediation technologies could have provided more effective tools for managing the consequences of the disaster.

This last issue sticks out like a sore thumb.  In the face of increasing global challenges, it is all too easy to latch onto the naïve assumption that technology-based solutions will present themselves as and when needed:  The belief that technology innovation will save the day is a pervasive one.  Yet as oil began gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, potential new technology-based solutions to managing the spill were conspicuous by their absence – not because the science wasn’t there, but because there had been insufficient investment in developing it into commercially viable technologies.  Technology platforms such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology for instance have the potential to support oil cleanup solutions that are significantly more effective and environmentally benign than existing ones.  But in the absence of concerted efforts to translate cutting edge science into viable commercial products, BP ended up using an established dispersant with questionable environmental and human health impacts, and uncertain consequences when introduced to an oil plume 5000 feet below the sea’s surface.

If we are to benefit from emerging technologies – to ensure that they help address pressing challenges, and do not create more problems than they solve – we clearly need to think differently about how they are developed and used.  There needs to be far greater awareness of the consequences of getting complex and far-reaching technologies wrong, a new willingness for stakeholders to work together to find sustainable solutions, and new thinking on how potential risks can be identified and addressed as early as possible in the development cycle.  Because as emerging technologies become increasingly complex and powerful, the consequences of mis-steps on public health and the environment will only become more catastrophic.

This will require better understanding of how emerging technologies can lead to unexpected impacts on human health.  And it will depend on developing a deeper appreciation of how technology innovation can be nudged along more responsible – and ultimately more sustainable and beneficial – pathways.  In effect, we need a new paradigm that places a science-based understanding of risk at the center of sustainable development.

The Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan is at the forefront of this movement toward a new risk paradigm.  By integrating cutting edge science, multi-stakeholder partnerships and effective communication, the Center is working towards avoiding harm from emerging technologies while ensuring their benefits are fully realized.  It’s an approach that will significantly reduce the chances of future adverse health impacts – but it’s also one that makes sound business sense.

Devastating as the Deepwater Horizon disaster has been, it is a timely wakeup call to the consequences getting technology innovation wrong – one that has relevance far beyond the confines of BP.  As we enter an age where we are more dependent than ever on getting technology innovation right, corporations, policy makers, policy influencers and citizens all need to be a part of a process that supports the emergence of responsible technologies.  But for this process to lead to a sustainable future, it must be built on the best possible information if it is to succeed – which means investing proactively and strategically in the science of identifying, understanding and avoiding potential risks.  The alternative is to take increasingly risky gambles with our technology-supported future.  And as any seasoned gambler knows, the house always wins – eventually.

The version of this piece published in Findings can be accessed here.

New technologies depend on uncommon materials, and society depends on new technologies.  Which means that economies that develop the former and control the latter have something of an upper hand in today’s interconnected and technology-dependent world.

This has clearly not escaped the notice of the Chinese.  China, which controls around 90% of the world’s rare earth minerals – many of which are essential to advanced materials – has being blocking shipments of these materials to Japan for the last month. And now, according to yesterday’s New York Times, it has “quietly halted some shipments of those materials to the United States and Europe”.

At the same time, according to the journal Nature,

“Alternative energy, biotechnology, advanced materials and fuel-efficient vehicles will be promoted in China’s newly mapped 2011–15 development plan, according to a report published by the country’s state council on 18 October.”

In other words, China is simultaneously controlling the flow of materials that are essential to many new technologies, while actively working on the very technologies that exploit these materials.

Rare earth elements aren’t that rare, despite the name.  But in recent years, it has become increasingly unprofitable for economies outside China to mine and process them.  As Technology Review noted a few days ago:

“Rare earths are comprised of 17 elements, such as terbium, which is used to make green phosphors for flat-panel TVs, lasers, and high-efficiency fluorescent lamps. Neodymium is key to the permanent magnets used to make high-efficiency electric motors. Although well over 90 percent of the minerals are produced in China, they are found in many places around the world, and, in spite of their name, are actually abundant in the earth’s crust (the name is a hold-over from a 19^th-century convention). In recent years, low-cost Chinese production and environmental concerns have caused suppliers outside of China to shut down operations.”

One solution to the looming monopoly is to begin extraction processes elsewhere.  Another is to look for alternatives to these increasingly valuable resources.  As Tim Harper of Cientifica noted in a recent report:

“Through the use of nanotechnologies we can now start to develop processes that do not use rare resources, for example using carbon nanotubes and metallic nanoparticles in polymers to make them conducting rather than applying thin layers of indium tin oxide.”

There are difficulties to this approach, as Dexter Johnson at IEEE Spectrum noted.  But one way or another, China’s actions are shining a searing spotlight on some of the hidden dependencies of technology innovation, and some of the less obvious challenges to developing technology-based solutions to problems in what is becoming an increasingly resource-constrained world, no matter how you look at it.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/10/20/limited-resources-and-emerging-technologies-china-does-the-math/feed/ 0 http://2020science.org/2010/10/14/rehabilitating-risk/ http://2020science.org/2010/10/14/rehabilitating-risk/#comments Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:25 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3649

Now that I’ve had some time to get to grips with my new position as Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, I thought it was high time I started letting people know something about where the Center will be heading over the next few years.  Cross-posted on the Risk Science Center’s home page, here’s a flavor of where we’re going:

Risk is often treated as a four-letter word, or an embarrassing relative – something distasteful that shouldn’t be mentioned in polite society. Yet the reality is that a clear understanding of risk and how to deal with it is essential to every aspect of our lives. The past hundred years have left us a horrifying legacy of what goes wrong when people ignore risks, or fail to identify, access and manage them appropriately, or aren’t equipped to make informed decisions as new potential issues arise. And the challenges are only going to get tougher in today’s increasingly technology-dependent, interconnected and resource-constrained world. Without a doubt, if we are to build a sustainable future in the 21st century, we need to rethink our approach to risk. We need integrative, cross-disciplinary approaches to understanding and managing risks that are inclusive of all stakeholders. We need to push the process of identifying and addressing potential risks up-stream in the innovation process. And we need to equip everyone from citizens to CEO’s and journalists to policy makers to make informed decisions in the face of increasing uncertainty and complexity.

When I accepted the directorship of the Risk Science Center earlier this year, it was this forward-looking challenge that was uppermost in my mind… We already have a strong tradition at the University of Michigan and elsewhere of assessing risks to human health through research in areas like toxicology, epidemiology and exposure, and using generated data to drive decisions on risk management and mitigation. But we struggle to deal with emergent risks presented by new technologies (or new ways of using old technologies) in a changing world. Everyone does – there is no manual (yet) for how to address human health risks from increasingly complex technologies, and how to do this in a society where stakeholder and citizen engagement is becoming increasingly important, where uncertainty dominates the decision-making process, and where ill-informed decisions on risks and benefits could be potentially catastrophic.

So my aim is for the Risk Science Center to spearhead the movement toward a new risk paradigm. By integrating cutting edge science, multi-stakeholder partnerships and effective communication, the Center will be working towards avoiding harm from existing and emerging technologies while ensuring their benefits are fully realized. It’s an approach that will significantly reduce the chances of future adverse health impacts – but it’s also one that makes sound business sense.

This is still very much a work in progress. Over the next year the governance structure of the Center will be established, it’s vision, mission, aims and activities will be further developed, and this website will undergo a major overhaul – creating a resource and community nexus for stakeholders, faculty and students engaged in thinking differently about risk.

In the meantime, please check out the Risk Science Center’s about page for further information on how the Center is developing. And keep an eye out for new initiatives coming out of the Center – including next year’s Bernstein Symposium on “Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation: New Perspectives on Emerging Challenges”.

Risk may still be a four-letter word to some, but that’s going to have to change if we as a society are going to tackle the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and come out on top. As the Risk Science Center develops, expect it to be front and center of this change.

For more information, check out the Risk Science Center’s website.

Sometime in the past couple of weeks – I’m not entirely sure when as accounts are conflicting – the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) posted a draft of a new report examining the long-term impacts and research directions of nanotechnology.  The “Nano2″ study was supported by the National Science Foundation under the direction of Mike Roco, and included input from an impressive array of nano-experts from round the world.  What resulted was a 13 chapter behemoth of a report on the current state and next ten years of nanotechnology worldwide.

Having just started to look through the report (I was traveling when it was posted … I think) I can’t really comment on it’s overall relevance and authority.  But if the chapter dealing with environment, health and safety (EHS) issues is anything to go by, this is a report to take seriously…

The EHS chapter (chapter 4) is authored by twelve recognized experts in the field of nano-risks, and presents a comprehensive perspective on near-term research challenges and opportunities.  The chapter is far from perfect – as you would expect, it reflects the perspectives and interests of the authors – but then most reports of this type do.  It also contains some rather jangling statements. For instance on the first page the definition of “the environmental, health and safety (EHS) of nanomaterials” seems to miss out environmental impact beyond “animal health”.  And a rather outmoded focus on educating the public on page 25, where the authors state

“A key issue therefore is for academia, industry and government is to find appropriate mechanisms to reach consensus, and effectively communicate and educate the public on the beneficial implications of nanotechnology, the potential for risk, and what is being done to ensure safe implementation of the technology.”

Mmm, not quite what they are teaching in engagement 101 these days!

But this is a draft, and these and other questionable statements do not detract from the overall usefulness of the chapter.

In many ways, the chapter reflects challenges that have been raised before.  Many of the issues highlighted can be traced back to the 2006 commentary in Nature I co-authored on nanotechnology safety challenges, and a number of reports that preceded it.  So questions surrounding exposure monitoring, toxicity screening, predictive modeling, safety by design and taking a life cycle approach to emerging nanomaterials abound.  But many of these are unpacked and explored in a fresh and useful way in this document. There is also a very welcome tie-in to risk-governance [a topic near and dear to my heart, having just co-edited a forthcoming book on the subject], reflecting the need for integrative approaches to understanding and addressing the challenges presented by engineered nanomaterials.

That said, the report fails to break out of old ruts when it comes to identifying materials of concern.  The old chestnuts are there – carbon nanotubes, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, nano-silver and the like.  But there’s little mention of the next wave of emerging nanomaterials – nanoscale cellulose for instance, or active nanomaterials.  Neither do prevalent but poorly studied engineered nanomaterials like platinum/palladium nanoparticles in auto catalysts get a look-in.  Granted that the document is only looking forward 10 years, but it would have been good to have seen more thought given to complex nanomaterials, and novel approaches to exploring whether they present emergent risks, and how to handle them.

That aside though, this chapter is a strong addition to the literature on nanomaterial risks, and how we need to start addressing them – from risk identification and assessment through to risk management, mitigation and avoidance.  The areas highlighted for further research/action aren’t comprehensive, but they are important.  These include:

• Developing validated nano-EHS screening methods and harmonized protocols that promote standardized engineered nanomaterials risk assessment at levels commensurate with the growth of nanotechnology.
• Developing risk reduction strategies that can be implemented incrementally through commercial nanoproduct data collection, regulatory activity, and EHS research directly linked to decision-making.
• Developing a clearly defined strategy for nano-EHS governance that is compatible with incremental knowledge generation and stepwise decision-making
• Developing computational analysis methods capable of providing in silico modeling of nano-EHS risk assessment and modeling.
• Developing high-throughput and high-content screening as a universal tool for studying nanomaterial toxicology, ranking hazards, prioritizing animal studies and nano-Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models, and guiding the safe design of nanomaterials.
• Improving safety screening and safe design of nanomaterials used in therapeutics and diagnostics.
• Developing advanced instrumentation and analytical methods for more competent and reliable engineered nanomaterial characterization, and detection in complex biological and environmental media.
• Development of computational models, algorithms, and multidisciplinary resources for increasingly sophisticated predictive modeling.
• Developing workforce capacity through interdisciplinary education and training, particularly in the nano-EHS field, where a large number of research areas are converging.

If you have an interest in nanotechnology impacts, I would definitely put the chapter on your reading list.  If you are actively involved in the field – it’s a must-read.

I mentioned that this is a draft report, and it’s actually open for public comment – you can sign up to comment here.  But you’d better be fast – just as there is some ambiguity over when the draft was posted, there is also ambiguity over when the comment period closes.  One source suggests it could be the end of this week – but I couldn’t find any confirmation of that.  So the sooner you get reading and commenting, the better!

This week I exchanged the maze of academia for an entirely different maze – I spent most of the week at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of the New Champions in Tianjin, China.

World Economic Forum meetings are usually rather grand, complex, intimidating, stimulating and serendipitous affairs, and this was no exception.  Built around the theme of “driving growth through sustainability” (a subtly clever theme I thought), it brought together business, government and community leaders from around the world (together with a smattering of academics and others) to discuss and explore sustainable solutions to emerging challenges.

In the words of the supporting material,

“Sustainability requires committing to a new mindset – one that is determined to challenge long-held economic assumptions, rethink business models and explore scientific and technological solutions to foster innovation and creativity within organizations. As the global population moves from 6 billion to 9 billion, it is also a mindset that defines sustainability in the broadest terms, beyond its ecological impact, to develop a more holistic, systemic and integrated approach to leadership. Therefore, driving growth through sustainability is fundamental for global, national and business competitiveness in the 21st century.”

There was a lot of food for thought generated at the meeting, which is going to take some time to digest.  And as this is my weekly roundup, I’m going to resist the temptation to engage in deep analysis at this stage.  But in winding down as I travel back to Michigan, I did want to capture some of the more trivial highs (and lows) of the week here.

At one of the earlier sessions I attended, a rather bright researcher from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) talked about an innovative new product he is developing in his lab – History Glasses.  The glasses have an embedded camera and a single electrode that rests on the relevant part of the head when you wear them.  Whenever the wearer experiences a “wow” moment (in the words of the inventor), the camera takes a picture of whatever they are looking at – so you end up with a record of all those moments in your day/week/year that involuntarily capture your attention.

Being rather enamored by this idea, I thought I would use this week’s Lost in the Maize as my virtual “History Camera” of the Tianjin meetings – capturing some of those “wow” moments from the week.  Be warned though – just as the history camera doesn’t necessarily capture what you might expect, these are a rather eclectic collection of experiences!

Night driving between Beijing and Tianjin. Being driven in a coach between Beijing airport and Tianjin en the evening, I came away with the impression that there is just one rule for night driving in China – don’t hit anyone if you can avoid it.

Augmented reality – who needs it? A panel of four speakers tried to convince the audience that augmented reality is the next big thing.  (For the uninitiated, this is where a real-time image of reality captured on a cell phone, for instance, is overlaid with information, animations, or just about anything else). There certainly seems to be a growing demand for it.  But the question was left unanswered – will it make us any happier?

Water food and energy. In standing with the meeting’s theme, there was a heavy emphasis here on addressing the looming water, energy and food crises that global society will face over the next few decades.  What was surprising to a number of people – including myself – was how high up people’s agenda water was.

‘We’ll run out of water before we run out of oil” This from Peter Braebeck-Letmathe, Chairman of the Board for Nestlé

People – everywhere! The number of volunteers and others helping out at the meeting was truly impressive – everywhere you went, there was someone at your elbow offering aid.  This got a bit much though when bathroom attendants insisted in helping you wash your hands!

Nanosilver bug-killers. Who would have thought I would learn something new about nanotech at a WEF meeting!  Some provocative micrographs were presented of nanoscale silver particles disrupting the outer membranes of bacteria – but because the work hasn’t been published yet I can’t say much more than this at the moment, apart from stay tuned…

More people! At a cultural event hosted by the City of Tianjin we were greeted by what must have been a corridor of at least two hundred perfectly turned out attendants – alternating men and women dressed in traditional costume.  Walking down the line was simultaneously impressive and humbling.

Serendipitous taxi-sharing. This is a WEF tradition.  Heading back from the cultural event I bumped into the person responsible for the Young Scientist program at WEF (an initiative by UNESCO to get young scientists involved in the World Economic Forum) and had a great conversation about raising the profile of science and scientists within the organization.

Smart scientists. On the subject of scientists, I was impressed by the Ideas Lab with Young Scientists attending the meeting.  Each had 5 minutes/15 slides (timed) to introduce their work to a lay audience, followed by breakout discussions on significant challenges and opportunities they were facing.  This is a great format for engaging people in science, and one that I really need to explore further.

Awareness based collective action. In a session chaired by Tom Friedman, C. Otto Sharmer (MIT) introduced this great concept to aid the development of innovation in a technologically and socially complex world.

Tom Friedman’s column. …and while Otto was talking, Tom was furiously scribbling.  After a pause, he noted he was just writing a column – raising a round of applause from the audience.  (If he does write about Otto’s ideas, it’ll be a piece worth looking out for).

Arts meet science. Another serendipitous taxi ride – this time with an arts curator/promoter from India.  We quickly realized that the challenges and opportunities she faces in engaging people in the arts are remarkably similar to those faced by science engagement – and that there’s tremendous scope for the two worlds to come together in innovative new ways.

Day driving between Tianjin and Beijing. On the way back to the airport I had the chance to observe the Tianjin traffic in daylight, and the only word I can think of to describe the functioning confusion of cars, trucks, bikes, carts and trolleys is “organic”.  I suspect the day-time driving rule is “don’t get closer than 2 inches to other road users – if you can avoid it”.

Beijing airport.  Impressive.  If I was wearing my history glasses, I’d have some photos!

The inventor of the History Camera is already talking to a couple of manufacturers, so that’s something to look out for.  The only potential problem is that, in early trials with students, users ended up with endless pictures of handbags (if they were girls) or women’s legs (if they were boys).  Leaving the question – is this the sort of history consumers are really going to want to remember?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

You’ve heard the rumors and read the hype – but what really goes on at the Singularity University, based at the NASA Ames campus in Silicon Valley?  Nature’s Nicola Jones recently went along to take a look, and her report has just been posted – it’s well worth reading.

The Singularity University was co-founded in 2008 by Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis – two people not known for being shy and retiring when it comes to new ideas.  The mission is to

“assemble, educate and inspire leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies in order to address humanity’s grand challenges”

Each year the University runs an intense ten-week summer school for graduates, leading to something that Nicola – from a brief visit this August – describes as a “think tank mashed with a geek adventure camp and a business-networking cocktail party”.

When Nicola was writing her piece, she contacted a number of people – including me – for opinions and insight into the Singularity University. This is what I wrote:

Hi Nicola,

This is a bit of a tough assignment for me as I can only assess the SU from what I read on the web, and what I know of various people involved.  I’m actually quite envious of you spending some time there – would love to hear how it comes across on the ground.

From what I know and have read about the SU, I am a little conflicted in my thoughts.  On the one hand, I don’t buy into the vision that some of the people involved preach – I think that Kurzweil’s concept of the singularity is naive for instance, and that a number of the people involved in the SU – while extremely bright – have a somewhat narrow perspective on how science, technology and society work.  But…

…that said, there are two aspects of the SU that excite and intrigue me:  First is the idea of bringing innovative and imaginative thinkers together in a high intensity environment.  Academia is notoriously conservative, and this often has a limiting influence on research and its application that can hold back innovation.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it means that progress is often slow and steady, but is more likely to be grounded on tested truths.  Yet there are occasions where less constrained thinking could lead to significant innovation – this is becoming increasingly the case I suspect as different technologies begin to converge and open up possibilities of synergistic and non-linear advances.  It’s even possible to argue that disruptive or non-linear innovation – new advances that make a break from previous ones, rather than being evolutionary – are only really possible within a system that encourages intellectual risk-taking.  Over the past 50 to 100 years, science fiction writing has been the stimulus for many scientists to follow unconventional lines of thought.  I’m not sure how acceptable it is these days though for scientists to claim they were inspired by fiction – it certainly doesn’t fit the mould of how kids are taught science works!  So maybe there is a need for opportunities that allow scientists and engineers to let their imaginations run a little wild.  And just as science fiction can stimulate sound science and technology, maybe we shouldn’t get too hung up about how realistic or grounded some of the ideas floating around in the SU are.

The second aspect that excites and intrigues me is the idea of encouraging new and innovative thinking on technology-based solutions to pressing problems.  I’m a firm believer in the importance of science and technology in delivering solutions to global problems in today’s increasingly interconnected and resource-constrained world.  Looking to a future where nine billion people plus are struggling to survive and thrive on a planet where energy, water and other natural resources are increasingly at a premium, it is hard to imagine solutions that don’t rely on new applications of science and technology.  Yet the conventional ways that we use science and technology almost definitely are not up to the job of ensuring a sustainable future.  We have a naive trust in science and technology to deliver innovative solutions to problems, but we still struggle to invest with foresight in technology innovation.  We haven’t yet cracked how to ensure technology innovation solves the problems we need it to solve, rather than the problems it can solve (we are good at creating devices we never knew we needed, while people still die of disease, starve and go without water).  And we struggle to ensure the responsible development and application of innovation, in ways that benefit people without causing undue harm.  Part of the problem is that we are trapped on outmoded ways of doing things – we need a shakeup in how science and technology are developed and used to benefit society.  And this is where the SU seems to remove some of the constraints on thinking about what is possible that have limited our effective use of science and technology.

I still have my reservations about a program that runs the risk of running close to pseudoscience at times.  But without the benefit of experience, I would be prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt as a generator of innovative thinking that might possibly help ensure the effective use of science and technology in improving society around the world – as long as there are checks and balances to ensure imaginations are grounded at some point in the possible, rather than fantasy.

Inevitably, it’s my reservations about the Singularity University that come out in Nicola’s piece more than my excitement.  But that’s how these things go.

Having read the Nature piece, I still have my concerns over some aspects of the Singularity University.  But I must confess, if the call came asking me to head out there to help out – even if it was just making the tea – you wouldn’t  see my feet for dust! This is a place that calls out to my inner-geek – big time!

Without a doubt, the world needs spaces where people can inspire each other to think big ideas and to think about what it would take to make them work – without the constraints of pedants, skeptics and naysayers.  The Singularity University is one of those spaces.

Yet at some point, we also need spaces where people can inspire each other to think big and innovative ideas about how technology and society can come together to build a sustainable future – not just an exciting one.

I’m not sure that space exists yet.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/09/15/ten-weeks-to-save-the-world-nature-does-the-singularity-university/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2010/08/24/value-added-nanotechnology/ http://2020science.org/2010/08/24/value-added-nanotechnology/#comments Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:00:33 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3498

The more the debate over what precisely nanotechnology is goes on, the more inclined I am to think that it’s something of an illusion.  Sure, nanoscale science is real.  And there are clearly technologies that exploit this.  But are they nanotechnologies, or are they simply clever uses of science, technology and engineering across multiple length scales to do something different?  In other words, does nanoscale science simply lead to… technology?  This piece from September 2008 hints at this line of thinking as it grapples with what “nanotechnology” actually means.

Originally posted September 3 2008.

Amidst the cacophony of debate swirling around the true meaning of nanotechnology, I head a voice or reason last week.  The voice was that of Dr. Bernd Sachweh of BASF, speaking at the European Aerosol Conference in Thessoloniki.

I paraphrase, but the essence of Bernd’s point was this:

‘Nano’ is not a thing or a product.  It has no intrinsic value.  Rather, ‘nano’ adds value; it changes the properties and the worth of something that already exists.

I must confess, I rather like the idea of ‘nano’ as adding value, rather than being an entity in and of itself.  It’s hard to come up with of an example where engineering something at the nanoscale leads to behaviour or functionality that is independent of the starting material.  Rather, the great potential of nanotechnology would seem to be in taking raw materials and engineering them in ways that lead to the emergence of novel scale-related properties, which can then be used in new and innovative ways.

But what I really like about the concept of added-value is that it provides insight into how nanotechnology might be approached from an oversight perspective.

Just as ‘nano’ adds value to products and processes, it can also be seen as changing the potential of something to cause harm; an “added-risk” to counterbalance the “added-value.”

As soon as ‘nano’ is seen in terms of both added-value and added-risk, it becomes easier to think through some of the more knotty questions associated with using nanomaterials and nano-products safely.

First off is the question of whether all products of nanotechnology are uniquely harmful.

Unique nanoscale-related functionality features in many definitions of nanotechnology—this is where the added value comes from.  And it is often assumed that this unique functionality will always equate to unique risks.  Yet unlike added-value, added-risk is not intentionally built into the products of nanotechnology.  Rather, it is a by-product of the technology.

As a result, added-risk may be significant in some cases, while in others it may be negligible.  It is even conceivable that engineering a material at the nanoscale could reduce the risk it presents to human health and the environment—leading to negative added-risk.  From an oversight perspective, functionality and potential to cause harm sometimes need to be disentangled—something that the concepts of added-value and added-risk might help to achieve.

Following this line of thought, effective nanotechnology oversight will depend on identifying whether engineering a material at the nanoscale results in added-risk.  And implementing such oversight will mean identifying, measuring and controlling those aspects of a new product or material that add to the risk—whether they are related to particle size, material surface area, surface chemistry, or other nano-relevant characteristics.

But does nanotechnology demand a brand new set of regulations, or can the existing ones cope?  Where existing regulations work for conventional materials and products, the concept of added-risk would seem to support developing new rules on applying current regs to nanotech materials and products, rather than formulating a new set of nanotechnology regulations.  After all, if ‘nano’ has no intrinsic value or risk, what will a brand new set of regulations actually regulate?

The caveat here of course is that the existing regulations need to be sufficiently robust yet flexible to address the added-risk that some nanotechnology applications will embody.  And the evidence is that this isn’t the case for every material or product out there! (See for instance, “Managing the effects of Nanotechnology” by J. Clarence Davies)

Sticking with existing regulations, the concept of added-risk is useful when it comes to defining what is ‘nano’ and what is not from an oversight perspective.

If the aim is for regulations (in the broadest sense) to address the added-risk rather than the added-value of nanotech materials and products, should definitions of nanotechnology be used that emphasize added-value?  Probably not.  Definitions that depend on the uniqueness and “added-value” of nanotechnology are great for guiding and inspiring research and investment that will lead to new nanotechnology-based products.  But where they do not embody the concept of “added-risk,” they are at best inadequate and at worst seriously misleading when it comes to ensuring the safety of new nanotechnologies.  For instance, gold nanoparticles can bring significant added-value to products when incorporated into heterogeneous catalysts, but if release and exposure are low, added-risk is likely to be minimal.  On the other hand, reducing the size of silver particles to 20 nanometers brings only marginal added-value from a nanotechnology perspective (the physical and chemical properties of the silver do not alter appreciably from the bulk material at this size), yet the increased possibility for release, dispersion and exposure most likely leads to significant added-risk in some cases.

For regulatory purposes, something else is needed—a point hammered home by Mike Taylor in his 2006 assessment of the US Food and Drug Administration’s ability to regulate the products of nanotechnology.  In this respect, it would be far more useful to have a definition of nanotechnology that incorporates the idea that nanoscale engineering can lead to significant changes in the potential risks associated with a material.  Something like:

For regulatory and oversight purposes, nanotechnology is the control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nm, where the behaviour of the resulting material or product differs sufficiently from the component materials to lead to significant changes in potential risks to human health and the environment.

This is a definition that is based on added-risk, not added-value.  And unlike the more commonly used definitions of nanotechnology, it would encompass engineered nanomaterials where the predominant change in moving from the macroscale (or molecular scale) to the nanoscale is an increased potential for release, transport, accumulation, exposure dose, and biological impact.

Developing an added-risk based definition along these lines (and this is just an example of what a definition might look like) would include a broad range of materials and products that have an altered risk profile because of how they have been engineered; not just those that lie within the somewhat artificial boundaries of 1 to 100 nm.  In effect, there would be no more need for lengthy arguments about whether a 99 nm particle is a nanoparticle for regulatory purposes but a 101 is not; or whether large molecules should be treated as nanomaterials.  Under such a definition, the determiner of relevance would be added-risk, NOT size.

This all sounds great.  But I do have one niggling concern about this idea of added-risk.  And that is how will it apply to the more esoteric products of nanotechnology that are coming along—the increasingly complex second, third and even fourth generation materials that have multiple components, multiple functionalities, and can respond and adapt to their environments and other stimuli.  Here we are moving from adding value to existing materials and technologies, to building brand new materials and technologies.  Will we still be able to think of oversight in terms of added-risk, or will we need to go back to the drawing board?

That’s a tricky one and I’m not sure the answer is clear yet.  But given the current rate of progress being made in nanotechnology, we could do with some answers sooner rather than later.  In the meantime, seeing nanotechnology in terms of the added-value and added-risk it brings to materials, processes and products might just help deal with the nanotech which is out there now.

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

In February 2008, the National Academy of Engineering launched 14 grand challenges for engineering.  These were the inspiration for this post, but rather than focus on the challenges themselves, I thought it would be interesting to consider how science and technology are going to help address them.  Over two years on, the ideas I was writing about here seem more relevant than ever – as I write this, I am putting the finishing touches to a World Economic Forum report that echoes many of the challenges I outlined back in March 2008.

Originally posted March 6 2008

Can current approaches to doing science sustain us over the next one hundred years?  An increasing reliance on technological fixes to global challenges — including nanotechnology — demands a radical rethink of how we use science in the service of society.

Over the next century we will perhaps be facing the greatest challenge in the history of humanity: sustaining six billion plus people on a planet where natural resources are running scarce and our every action results in a palpable environmental reaction.  Progress towards sustainability will only come through integrating relevant science with socially-responsible decision making.  Yet the science policy dogmas of the 20th century may be stretched to breaking point in the face of 21st century challenges.

And these challenges are immense. The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recently published 14 “grand challenges for engineering” — the culmination of a year-long project exploring and reviewing the greatest technological challenges facing us in the 21st century.  At the top of the list is development of economical solar energy and fusion-energy, followed by crafting carbon sequestration methods, improving access to clean water, creating improved medicines, preventing nuclear terror, and eight other pressing needs.  The challenges are a stark reminder of the limitations of our current capabilities, and what needs to change if we are to continue growing as a society in harmony with our surroundings.

The solutions to many of these challenges will come from emerging areas of science and technology that include nanotechnology, as well as areas such as synthetic biology and cognitive science — the science of how we use our mind to think and learn.  These are not the physics, chemistry and biology of 20th century science.  Rather, they represent a blurring of the boundaries between conventional disciplines — a mixing-up of ideas and concepts that has the potential to stimulate tremendous innovation.

For example, nanotechnology combines elements of physics and chemistry to find new solutions to old problems.  Cheap, efficient solar cells and access to clean water are just two areas that this emerging technology is showing promise in.  But combine the ideas of nanotechnology with molecular biology and you open the door to playing with the building blocks of life itself — DNA.  Imagine what we could achieve by inventing new organisms that harvest energy, clean up pollution, and build new materials atom by atom.  Sounds like science fiction, but simple nanotechnologies are already being used in daily life; and synthetic biology is rapidly becoming a reality, with the first artificially constructed bacterium genome reported in January of this year.

In addressing the major challenges of the 21st century, it is the convergence of these new technologies that will deliver the solutions.  But policymakers, scientists and engineers will only be able to transform the new knowledge from research to practice if strong policies and frameworks are in place to support and nurture these emerging technologies. 20th century science and technology thrived on the twin dogmas of partitioned disciplines and knowledge diffusion.  Vast investment in basic research was thought to lead — eventually — to technological solutions; a Darwinian natural selection of the best ideas generated by self-absorbed researchers.  And while “interdisciplinary collaboration” was the mantra of many a grant proposal, few ventured far from the comfort of their particular disciplinary caste.

But if 21st century solutions are to be found to 21st century challenges, we need a new way of doing science.  This “smart science” must train future practitioners to work across conventional boundaries and remove the barriers to interdisciplinary research that continue to persist.  It must be socially relevant.  And it must engage citizens at every level — with the recognition that scientists need to be socially literate, as much as citizens need to be scientifically literate.

It is no exaggeration to say the state of the world our children’s children inherit will depend on the choices we make now, and one of the critical choices will be how we will develop and use science in the service of society. As we approach the 2008 U.S. presidential election, there is a ground-swell within the American scientific community in support of a presidential science debate.  While the idea of politicians talking science might have minority appeal, the consequences of bad science policy will have a major impact — and one that will be felt much sooner than the end of the century or even the end of the next term of office.

The end of the 21st century might look a long way off.  But it is the choices we make now that will determine the consequences our grandchildren and their children are faced with.  20th century approaches to science got us a long way, but they lack what it takes to address the challenges now facing us.  Nanotechnology and other emerging technologies that hold the seeds of future will not and cannot be sustained by 20th century thinking.  Instead, we need a 21st century approach to science to get us through the next one hundred years — and we need it sooner rather than later.

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

I‘m going to be taking a break from 2020 Science over the next few weeks, as I finally make the move with my family from DC to Ann Arbor.  But rather than let the blog languish, I thought I would use this as an opportunity to revisit some of my old posts.  So through August, I will be digging up and re-posting blogs from summer 2008 that still have some relevance.

These will be posted every Tuesday and Thursday through August – starting on August 3.  You can get them delivered automatically via email by following this link.   Or you can simply check in each week to see what’s new.

Either way, I hope you enjoy the retrospective.

And if you do, please feel free to leave a comment, or retweet the posts on Twitter (you can use that little retweet badge at the top of the page!).

Have a great summer, and see you all in September.

Cheers,

Andrew

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

A few weeks ago, I set Friends of the Earth a challenge - What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?

The challenge came out of an article from FoE on nanomaterials and sunscreens, which I subsequently critiqued on 2020 Science.  Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminto from FoE kindly responded to my challenge – not by rising to it as such, but by fleshing out the justification for the position that they take on nanomaterials and sunscreens.

That post led to a useful discussion on the issues, with comments from the NGO community, regulators and respected scientists – it’s one that I would highly recommend anyone interested in nanomaterials and sunscreens reading.

To wrap things up (for the time being), I thought it would be worth reflecting on some of the issues raised by Georgia and Ian in their response, and the ensuing discussion:

Getting nanomaterials’ use in context. First, Georgia and Ian, very appropriately in my opinion, brought up the societal context within which new technologies and products are developed and used:

“why not support a discussion about the role of the precautionary principle in the management of uncertain new risks associated with emerging technologies? Why not explore the importance of public choice in the exposure to these risks? Why not contribute to a critical discussion about whose interests are served by the premature commercialisation of products about whose safety we know so little, when there is preliminary evidence of risk and very limited public benefit.”

This is a legitimate issue, and one that is touched on by a number of people in the comments.  Decisions on what is developed, what people are exposed to, who decides what is appropriate and what is not, and who pays the consequences while who reaps the benefits, go far beyond the science and technology itself.  This is touched on by Jennifer Sass from NRDC:

I strongly support a dialogue that has space for both scientific calculations and values and perceptions of risk. We need to make that dialogue public, inclusive, transparent, and thoughtful. Risk is more than a number – its a face, a person, a community.

Guillermo Foladorio also touches on this broader societal context:

We have here 2 kind of issues. One is the “scientific” knowledge (are nano-sunscreens harmful?). This is a never endend issue. Science is a process and not a fact. The other issue, although hidden, is of great importance: focusing on a never ended scientific discussion is the field that corporations like, in the meanwhile the market of such products grows and consolidates, aside from any wondering of the needs for such new stuff; or better which percentage of the population will benefit in the case.

I would suggest that forcing a technology on society has never been acceptable behavior.  But it has certainly been easier to do in the past.  These days though, we live in a much more crowded, resource-constrained and interconnected world than ever before.  Which means that the consequences of ill-conceived technology implementation are magnified, and the dynamics of introducing new – and possibly beneficial – technologies – are far more complex than they were in the past.

This means that we need to think critically about the broader societal issues associated with technology innovation, and we need to push the dialogue further upstream in the development process – a point Jeff Morris from EPA makes.  This means rethinking how we make decisions in partnership across society, and how we begin to apply ideas like the precautionary principle in a complex world – a point eloquently made by Richard Jones.

But it also means that we need to think carefully about how we use scientific knowledge and data – “evidence” – in making decisions.

Evidence-informed decision-making. At some point, decisions need to be based on information, and in the long run you cannot get away with making that information up!  It’s one thing to evaluate critically the current state of evidence in making decisions, but quite another to preferentially select evidence that supports a predetermined position.  Yet the latter is often the default position when it comes to influencing decisions – whether by policymakers or consumers.

Having worked at the heart of science-based policy in the US for a number of years, I’m all too familiar with the line of argument that goes “what do we want to achieve?” followed by “what evidence can we find that supports us?”.  Yet this is an approach that ultimately devalues the importance of evidence in making decisions, one that can have serious adverse consequences when decisions are made on dodgy information, and one that is patently unsustainable in the long run.

My original critique of FoE’s article challenged their use of “evidence” in supporting the position they took.  To me, they showed a tendency to use selective pieces of information to sow seeds of doubt in the mind of the reader, rather than to empower the reader to make informed decisions. The social agenda was a laudable one – the use of selective science sound-bytes, less so.

This begins to come out when you read the comments on Georgia and Ian’s response from three scientists who have worked on nanoscale materials on the skin.  Despite FoE’s implications that nanoparticles in sunscreens might cause cancer because they are photoactive, Peter Dobson points out that there are nanomaterials used in sunscreens that are designed not to be photoactive. Brian Gulson, who’s work on zinc skin penetration was cited by FoE, points out that his studies only show conclusively that zinc atoms or ions can pass through the skin, not that nanoparticles can pass through.  He also notes that the amount of zinc penetration from zinc-based sunscreens is very much lower than the level of zinc people have in their body in the first place.  Tilman Butz, who led one of the largest projects on nanoparticle penetration through skin to date, points out that – based on current understanding – the nanoparticles used in sunscreens are too large to penetrate through the skin.

These three comments alone begin to cast the potential risks associated with nanomaterials in sunscreens in a very different light to that presented by FoE.  Certainly there are still uncertainties about the possible consequences of using these materials – no-one is denying that.  But the weight of evidence suggests that nanomaterials within sunscreens – if engineered and used appropriately – do not present a clear and present threat to human health.

Yet, because there are uncertainties still, we cannot afford to be complacent here.

Handling uncertainty. And this brings me to the thorny issue of uncertainty.  When we are lacking absolute evidence on safety or risk, what do we do – do we halt progress until we are sure about how safe something is, or do we muddle along until more information is available?

This question is becoming increasingly important as the rate of technology innovation – and the complexity of emerging technologies – accelerates.  Consumers, regulators, businesses and others are being forced more and more to make decisions in the face of increasing uncertainty.  At the same time, we are dependent on technology innovation as a global society – although the idea of “going back to basics” is an attractive one, it’s not going to help the marginalized in an overcrowded and resource-constrained world.  Rather, we need new ideas on how to use science and technology in ways that ensure as many people as possible have an acceptable quality of life.

The question is, how do we do this when we cannot be sure of how safe or dangerous a new technology is?

The Precautionary Principle is one approach – and a very misunderstood and misused one – to addressing this, and one brought up by FoE and others in the context of sunscreens.  It has many formulations – it’s not a hard and fast principle.  But it is currently described in the European Union in this way:

The precautionary principle should be informed by three specific principles:

• implementation of the principle should be based on the fullest possible scientific evaluation. As far as possible this evaluation should determine the degree of scientific uncertainty at each stage;
• any decision to act or not to act pursuant to the precautionary principle must be preceded by a risk evaluation and an evaluation of the potential consequences of inaction;
• once the results of the scientific evaluation and/or the risk evaluation are available, all the interested parties must be given the opportunity to study of the various options available, while ensuring the greatest possible transparency.

Besides these specific principles, the general principles of good risk management remain applicable when the precautionary principle is invoked. These are the following five principles:

• proportionality between the measures taken and the chosen level of protection;
• non-discrimination in application of the measures;
• consistency of the measures with similar measures already taken in similar situations or using similar approaches;
• examination of the benefits and costs of action or lack of action;
• review of the measures in the light of scientific developments.
• The burden of proof

This is a pragmatic principle, that looks to using evidence and an evaluation of consequences in making informed decisions in the face of uncertainty.  It certainly does not preclude the development or implementation of a new technology until there is certainty on safety.

The emphasis on the potential consequences of inaction are particularly relevant to today’s world, where we are stuck on a technological tight-rope, and where the consequences of not doing something may be more harmful than taking action.  Richard Jones picked up on this in his suggestion for a more relevant application of the Precautionary Principle to emerging technologies:

what are the benefits that the new technology provides – what are the risks and uncertainties associated with not realising these benefits?

what are the risks and uncertainties attached to any current ways we have of realising these benefits using existing technologies?

what are the risks and uncertainties of the new technology?

This seems a useful place to start from when faced with the reality of having to make the best possible decisions in the face of uncertainty, and where inaction isn’t a option.

But to make decisions – even when there are gaping holes in the data – you need something to go on.

So why did I pose the challenge in the first place? Despite suspicions from some that I was merely being provocative with this question, I asked it in all seriousness.  In the face of uncertainty, playing out different potential scenarios is a powerful tool in helping identify the magnitude and nature of the consequences of different choices.

When it comes to using nanomaterials in sunscreens, I genuinely would like to know whether in the worst case we are looking at mass illness and death, isolated cases of skin rashes, or something in between.  Because the likely implications of the use of such materials in the future have profound implications on the actions we take now.

If decisions are made now on futures that are unlikely to be realized, not only do we waste resources and effort, but we potentially endanger people’s lives through ill-informed choices.  This cuts both ways – if TiO2 and ZnO nanomaterials in sunscreens are likely to harm a significant number of people to a significant degree, action should be taken to avoid this as soon as possible.  But if the benefits are positive and the impacts likely to be inconsequential, inhibiting the use of such materials could cost lives.

Using the best available information to work through possible scenarios provides insight into which futures are more likely, and where efforts are best focused.  This isn’t about setting exposure levels or conducting quantitative risk assessments – it’s about helping people making informed choices.

And who should do this?  I think any group that has a stake in how contemporary decisions affect future outcomes has a part to play.  I focused on FoE because they were pushing the issue.  And I think they have sufficient people they can draw on to make a stab at working through some scenarios and estimating likely impact.

But at the end of the day, this is something that all stakeholders should be involved in.

Because these are decisions that we are all going to have to live with the consequences of.

ASME – the organization that used to be known as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers – has just launched a series of educational podcasts on nanotechnology that are well worth checking out.

Between now and next February, the ASME Nanotechnology Institute will be posting new video and/or audio podcasts on their website every couple of weeks, covering a wide range of nanotechnology topics.

The podcasts are free, but you need to register with the site first before you can access them at http://nano.asme.org/Nano_Educational_Series.cfm However, to give you a feel for series, here’s the introductory video:

You may recognize one of the presenters   I spent a grueling four hours filming with ASME last year for the series – so it’s good to see I don’t look too worn out and exhausted in the video.

I’m not sure where else I will be appearing in the series – we covered a huge range of topics during filming – but expect to see at least one podcast with me addressing some of the environmental and human health aspects of nanotechnology.

Overall, this looks like a well-produced and informative series of podcasts, that should be well worth following if you have an interest in nanoscience and nanotechnology.

The global financial crisis of 2008-09 laid bare the inadequacies of global systems in an increasingly interdependent world, and highlighted the need to rethink the “architecture of global cooperation” – the idea at the core of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Initiative.  As the World Economic Forum publishes and discusses the outcomes of this intensive twelve month initiative, the critical need for up-front and integrated investment in sustainable technology innovation cannot afford to be overlooked.

If anyone is still in doubt that sustainable technology innovation depends on up-front investment in responsible development, just take a look at the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.  With strategic investment in planning for plausible outcomes, the unfolding environmental and human disaster could have been avoided, or at least substantially reduced.  Yet the failure to plan for the future and invest in technologies and strategies that would underpin safe and sustainable operations is indicative of a naive mindset within corporate and policy circles – that when problems occur, science and technology will deliver timely and effective solutions. 

Sadly, this is not the case.  In the face of high impact and increasingly complex technologies, new approaches are needed to developing the science, policies and tools that will underpin sustainable innovation.  This is at the center of a new proposal coming out of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Agenda to develop a Global Center for Emerging Technology Intelligence – or CETI.  The proposed Center aims to ensure that governments, businesses and other stakeholder organizations are equipped to make the most effective use of science and technology innovation in addressing the global challenges of the 21st Century.

CETI is just one of many proposals in the recently-published World Economic Forum Report of the Global Redesign Agenda – Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World.

As Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum writes in the report’s preface,

“Our purpose has been to stimulate a strategic thought process among all stakeholders about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges. This report summarizes and interprets the significance of the proposals that the Forum’s many communities have developed in response to this challenge.”

The ideas and proposals presented in the report are essential reading for anyone concerned about sustainable growth in a changing world.  But, just as the recent financial collapse and the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico were caused in part by a lack of foresight and investment in the future, many of the ideas here assume that science and technology will underpin proposed actions.  The reality is though that this will only happen with strategic investment in sustainable technology innovation on a scale that, as yet, does not occur.

And this is where the Global Center for Emerging Technologies Intelligence comes in.

The full CETI proposal can be read here.  But the main details of the proposed Center are outlined below:

Context

Emerging technologies are critical to long-term global prosperity. They represent the innovation that adds necessary economic and social value to materials, products and processes. And they provide potential solutions to a wide range of pressing global challenges including energy generation and storage, health care, climate change, food security and access to clean water. Yet without better global cooperation on technology innovation, many potential emerging technologies will not mature to the point at which they can be used effectively.

Government and corporate decision-makers are foundering in a world dominated by rapid and unprecedented social and technological developments. They are limited in their ability to anticipate and respond to new developments and they lack the mechanisms necessary to work with non-traditional but increasingly influential stakeholder groups.

Proposal

The Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence will directly address this need. A neutral, transparent and authoritative organization, the Centre’s leaders and staff will work with decision-makers at the highest level in industry, government and other organizations in ensuring the best possible tools are available to support the successful and sustainable development and implementation of new technologies.

The mission of the Centre is to ensure that governments, businesses and other stakeholder organizations are equipped to make the most effective use of science and technology innovation in addressing the global challenges of the 21st Century.

Explanation/Rationale

Why a Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence Is Necessary

Science and technology have been at the heart of economic growth, social prosperity and improvements in quality of life for close to ten thousand years. From the agricultural revolution to the information revolution, advances in society around the globe have been underpinned by new discoveries, and their innovative use in new products and processes. Nearly 250 years ago, the invention of the Spinning Jenny vastly increased speed with which cotton could be turned into yarn, revolutionizing the textile industry and helping usher in the industrial revolution. The discovery of penicillin in the early 1900’s allowed previously fatal infections to be treated, opening the door to modern surgical procedures. In the mid twentieth century, the invention and subsequent development of the transistor initiated a technology revolution that is still driving economic and social growth. And more recently, innovations in global communication, social networking and information processing have begun to empower global communities in ways unimaginable a few years ago.

Yet despite the clear impact of these and other examples, the continued success of science and technology as an engine for economic and social growth is not guaranteed. Over the past few decades, global economic and social landscapes have shifted radically, leading to new thinking on how to tap into the potential offered by emerging technologies. A growing global population, coupled with a widespread desire for a first-world quality of life, is placing unprecedented demands on resources around the world. Humanity’s actions are becoming uniquely entwined in environmental reactions, redefining our relationship with the planet on which we live and depend. And modern communications are making a mockery of geographical and institutional boundaries that have endured for hundreds and thousands of years. These three factors not only place new demands on how emerging technologies are used; they also rewrite the rules for using them effectively.

Recent attempts to introduce genetically modified foods into commerce in Europe provide a sobering lesson in how easy it is to mishandle emerging technologies. Despite little evidence to the contrary, apparent concerns over health and environmental impacts severely retarded the implementation of a technology that could save and improve millions of lives around the world. Yet these concerns were grounded in a backlash against corporate control that cut consumers out of the decision-making process. And through a socially-savvy media, people were galvanized to say “no” to “frankenfoods” – not because of the science and technology, but because of the way they were handled.

Missteps over the development of genetically modified foods are a prominent case among many where the trajectory of a technology has been dictated by social concerns as much as scientific evidence. It is becoming increasingly clear that hierarchical, evidence-based decision-making is not sufficient on its own to ensure the success of new technologies. In part, the situation is exacerbated by peer to peer global communications, where virtual groups can be informed about, motivated by and empowered to take action on emerging issues before institutional decision-makers are even aware there is an issue to respond to. We now live in a world where an incident in China, or the Middle East, can influence attitudes and actions in regions like Europe and the Americas in a matter of minutes through media like FaceBook and Twitter.

The impact on realizing the social and economic potential of new technologies is potentially profound. Established approaches to government and corporate policy-making founder in the new social order, and are limited in their ability to anticipate and guide new developments effectively. They lack the responsiveness, adaptability and foresight to anticipate hurdles to progress, or to work through partnership with non-traditional but increasingly influential stakeholder groups – including consumers.

Yet this disconnect between established policy mechanisms and new approaches to implementing emerging technologies is occurring at a point where future global prosperity is more dependent than ever on new science-based solutions to pressing problems.

Providing people with access to healthy food and clean water; managing climate change and its impacts; treating disease; generating and using energy wisely; coping with pollution—over the next fifty years, global challenges in these and similar areas will reach an unprecedented level. Without rapid and targeted advances in science and technology, humanity will not be able to face them without paying a large price. Now, perhaps more than at any time in history, we need the tools that science and technology provide to face an uncertain future. And just as the challenges are global in scope, so the solutions will need to be global in reach.

In emerging areas such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geoengineering, there is growing awareness that a new paradigm is needed if the technologies are to be developed effectively—one that predicts and avoids potential hurdles, develops and implements new technologies in partnership with multiple stakeholders, identifies and addresses possible health and environmental impacts before they occur, and responds rapidly to new developments. Yet there is a gaping chasm between the knowledge that a different approach to policy-making is needed, and an understanding of what this new approach should look like.

This is the gap that the Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence will fill. Working with decision-makers at the highest level in industry, government and other organizations, it will aim to ensure that decision-makers have the best possible tools at their disposal to ensure the successful and sustainable development and implementation of new technologies.

The Goals of a Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence

Be an authoritative and neutral source of intelligence on emerging technologies and the opportunities and challenges they raise

The Centre will work towards becoming the premier go-to source of information on emerging technologies for decision-makers, the media and the public. This will be achieved through developing a global network of experts on emerging technology policy, potential and risks, building in-house expertise, producing high value/high impact products and working closely with the media. The Centre will also promote accessibility, inclusiveness and strategic partnerships in an attempt to bridge divides that can characteristic advance technologies.

Provide timely information on emerging opportunities and challenges

The Centre will develop in-house expertise in identifying, evaluating and assessing new opportunities and challenges related to emerging technologies. Assessments of emerging issues will be published and made publicly available on a regular basis.

Bring senior stakeholders together to identify emerging issues

The Centre will bring high-level experts and decision-makers together on an annual basis to identify emerging issues and inform a rolling two-year programme of targeted projects.

Publish targeted research, analysis and recommendations

Based on a two-year strategic plan, the Centre will publish analyses and recommendations on key emerging technology issues.

The bottom line here is that sustainable technology innovation doesn’t just happen – it requires sustained, strategic and substantial up-front investment in the knowledge, frameworks and policies that will allow innovation to address global challenges without creating new problems.  CETI is one approach to addressing this need.  But whether this proposal is developed or something else is adopted in its place, one thing is very clear – global redesign will not happen unless we rethink sustainable technology innovation.  And for that to happen, science and technology need to be pushed much further up the global agenda.

Last week’s announcement from the J. Craig Venter Institute that scientists had created the first-ever synthetic cell was a profoundly significant point in human history, and marked a turning point in our quest to control the natural world.  But the ability to use this emerging technology wisely is already being dogged by fears that we have embarked down a dangerous and morally dubious path.

It’s no surprise therefore that, hot on the heels of last week’s announcement, President Obama called for an urgent study to identify appropriate ethical boundaries and minimize possible risks associated with the breakthrough.

This was a bold and important move on the part of the White House.  But its success will lie in ensuring the debate over risks in particular is based on sound science, and not sidetracked by groundless speculation.

The new “synthetic biology” epitomized by the Venter Institute’s work – in essence the ability to design new genetic code on computers and then “download” it into living organisms – heralds a new era of potentially transformative technology innovation.  As if to underline this, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce will be hearing testimony from Craig Venter and others on the technology’s potential on May 27th – just days after last week’s announcement.  But the technology also raises serious ethical and safety concerns: Is it right and proper to meddle with the fundamental basis of life?  What happens if the technology gets into the wrong hands? And what might occur when synthetic life meets the natural world?

Questions like these have challenged scientists, ethicists and decision makers for many years, and with good reason – our headlong charge into advanced genetic manipulation is taking us into uncharted and uncertain territory.  But the breakthroughs made by Craig Venter and his team place a new urgency on developing policies, ethics and research strategies in support of safe and acceptable synthetic biology.

The ethics in particular surrounding synthetic biology are far from clear; the ability to custom-design the genetic code that resides in and defines all living organisms challenges our very notions of what is right and what is acceptable.  Which is no doubt why President Obama wasted no time in charging the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to look into the technology.

But in placing ethics so high up the agenda, my fear is that more immediate safety issues might end up being overlooked.

It’s not that safety isn’t on the radar – there is already tremendous speculation over the potential impacts of synthetic biology.  But with one or two exceptions (including work from the J. Craig Venter Institute), there seems little science behind many of these conjectures.  And actions based on speculation alone may endanger the tremendous good that could come from this rapidly emerging technology, while potentially opening the door to unintended consequences.

Rather, scientists, policy makers and developers urgently need to consider how synthetic biology might legitimately lead to people and the environment being endangered, and how this is best avoided.

What we need is a science-based dialogue on potential emergent risks that present new challenges, the plausibility of these risks leading to adverse impacts, and the magnitude and nature of the possible harm that might result.  Only then will we be able to develop a science-based foundation on which to build a safe technology.

Synthetic biology is still too young to second-guess whether artificial microbes will present new risks; whether bio-terror or bio-error will result in harmful new pathogens; or whether blinkered short-cuts will precipitate catastrophic failure. But the sheer momentum and audacity of the technology will inevitably lead to new and unusual risks emerging.

And this is precisely why the safety dialogue needs to be grounded in science now, before it becomes entrenched in speculation.

In six months’ time, the President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues will be presenting President Obama with its findings and recommendations on the implications of synthetic biology.  Hopefully as well as grappling with the ethics of nanotechnology, their recommendations will also address the potential and plausible risks associated with the technology, and the science that is needed to ensure its safe development and use.

Because without sound science guiding the safety dialogue, there is every chance that synthetic biology will be derailed by mistrust, misinformation and misunderstanding.

And if this happens, it’s hard to see how anyone can win.

A guest blog by Hilary Sutcliffe, Director of MATTER, a UK think tank which explores how new technologies can work for us all.

The other day, I wrote a piece on the implications of synthetic biology where I  suggested that we “need to place discussions on a science basis, and not get over-distracted by ethical hand-wringing.”  It was a bit of a provocative statement – intentionally so – so I was pleased to see Hilary Sutcliffe pick up on it in the comments and push back against the implication that the ethics of synbio might not be as important as some think.  Given the relevance of her comments, I thought they deserved their own guest blog – so here they are – AM.

“Ethical hand-wringing”?  Hmm, I don’t think you were quite meaning this as I have interpreted it Andrew, but I have to disagree with your point in your Synthetic Biology Blog on the ethical hand-wringing, I think we should be distracting ourselves quite a lot with Ethical Hand-Wringing while the scientists are getting on with creating their new organisms, especially considering ‘what we understand is secondary to what we can do’, as you said.

I was at the Royal Society’s Synthetic Biology Stakeholder meeting which was shown by BBC Newsnight last week, (my Mum and I spotted me fleetingly in the corner!) and this and other recent synbio events gave me many a déjà vu moment – had I accidentally gone to a nano meeting?

There are many similarities between the development of genetic modification (GM) and nanotechnologies which can be learned in the development of synthetic biology.  Time is of the essence – GM and nano were pretty much already in the shops when we started to take action, but here perhaps we can get our act together a bit sooner.

Here are quick observations on my déjà vu moments and lessons from nano and GM that may apply.  This is not an exhaustive list, just my quick on-the-hoof thoughts in response to the limited information I have:

• This is just an evolution of….. what’s all the fuss about? – ‘But it’s just an extension of GM’, ‘it’s just an extension of systems biology’, ‘it’s not actually anything really different’, ‘it’s an evolution of what we have been doing for years’.  Hello?!  Whether that is true or not from a scientific point of view, much like nano when you are close to it, that is not the point.  As the The Economist points out in its editorial this week, ‘…whatever the rational pleadings of physics and chemistry, there exists a sense that biology is different, is more than just the sum of atoms moving about and reacting with one another, is somehow infused with a divine spark, a vital essence’.  That has always been the line from nano scientists too, perhaps with even more validity. But to the lay person, or the sceptic, it looks dismissive and rather suspicious.  So though it is perhaps reasonable from a scientific point of view, I would suggest that synthetic biologists kill that ‘line of defence’, it won’t work and it never worked for nano either. Instead of calming fears, in fact it often has the opposite effect of raising further concern in the non-expert.

• ‘But first we need a definition’: Aaaahhhhh, nnnnoooooo!  Guess what, there is no definition, and I had a big déjà vu moment here – the conversation was IDENTICAL to the many I have had about nano over the years!  Standards makers, regulators, synbiologists, whoever – get this sorted. This has been a very divisive issue for nano – some say deliberately engineered – so pleeeeese address this question as soon as possible.  I may be wrong, but there doesn’t seem to be a concerted international effort on this at the moment, there needs to be, now.  An idea – call up some of the nano people and find out how they did it (as slowly and tortuously as possible) and then do it differently!

• Governance – this does seem to be considered of real importance and there is work going on worldwide on this, though it appears in academia, rather than a concerted international effort – though I may be wrong. Five Academies – sister/brother orgs to the Royal Society – are meeting soon to discuss synbio, and this will be top of the list.  Obviously we need to do much better with this than we have on nano. The Venter Institute/MIT/CSIS prepared a interesting paper on Options for Governance; in the UK, Imperial/LSE/BIOS have a Center for Synthetic Biology and Innovation group which is doing some work sponsored by the Royal Society which looks interesting; and there are other experts in universities across the world doing their own work. But the BIG lesson for me from nano, which, with the potential for serious ‘bioerrors and bioterrors’, is even more important for synbio, is to get an international effort underway, ASAP, coordinated by a group such as the UN or OECD.  I have a vision of a UN/World Economic Forum/World Social Forum joint effort.  How unlikely is that, but perhaps worth a try?  Our Responsible Nano Code was the right document, but the wrong process.  Too British (despite the fact that all our businesses on the Working Group were multinational).  A very credible international process is very important here!

• ‘The current regulation is fit for purpose, we don’t need any more’.  This may actually be the case in this instance, but the time spent arguing about definitions with nano has slowed down the potential evaluation of the need for regulation and, some argue, given us some regulation which is not really fit for purpose. Again, an authoritative, multi-stakeholder process of regulatory evaluation needs to be underway now as part of the governance development process.

• Get business and science working together from the start.  In nano there were and still are parallel discussions going on with businesses and scientists in separate silos.  We really need to do things differently for synbio.  It is at the application end where the health, safety and environment impacts and social and ethical issues really hit, and business and science need both need to understand and participate in this.  If the governance area gets done by the Science Academies alone, this is unlikely to happen.  We need to find ways of making those connections with business early and making them stick.

• Ethical Hand-Wringing and public engagement. I have been encouraged by the calls on all sides for ethical debate, public engagement and what I think of as Ethical Hand-Wringing!  The ethical dilemmas in this are quite complicated, with vested interests on all sides and we need a serious commitment from governments, scientists and businesses to communicate clearly at all stages and engage all citizens in this discussion.  However, we do need more than the usual useful and interesting sets of focus groups reaching a few hundred people.  That is not really a debate on synthetic biology, it’s market research. Obviously synbioandme.org (yes I have bagged the domain) would be a start!  But I have come to the conclusion that we need to have mass communication and mass engagement if we are to allow citizens to understand and participate in this discussion.  This is tricky and we need to be much more innovative this time round.  And I don’t see much sign of that at the moment, though it is early days.  We made some inroads with nano, (fingers crossed for Nano&me being funded!) and the Dutch are doing a very interesting mass communication/engagement job on nano (check out the Nano Podium website).  Though of course as we are all broke, it won’t be happening anytime soon!

• But what do we want it for – where’s the overarching vision? A participant at the RS meeting made a very important point, which for me is the really big question.  We in the UK do these Big Important Inquiries (e.g. the recent Bioengineering report) where the government explores the potential for a technology with experts from the field in question and lo and behold, they say it is really important and should be given lots more funding! But where is the top level independent vision and strategy which explores the UK’s approach to its big issues – energy, health, poverty, the economy, for example – and looks at which technologies could be used to solve which problems?  Synbio, nano, GM, irradiation, IT, nano/bio/info/cogno may or may not be solutions to some of our most pressing problems, but unless applied research funding, economic incentives and commercial R&D is looked at in the context of other solutions, including non-technical ones, we can’t really be confident that we have got the right solutions to the right problems.   In addition, this is the very best time and place to anchor the Ethical Hand-Wringing, it would make public debate mean something, influential and galvanise everyone – from scientists to businesses, NGOs to governments – to engage better about the benefits of their work and debate real issues which will be relevant now and in the future.

Other countries do it – this must be an important priority for the new UK government. We have time with synthetic biology to get this right, we just need to get going now.

This piece also appears on the MATTER blog

Typical.  One of the most anticipated technological breakthroughs in years hits the streets, and I’m completely off the web – holed up in an Italian hotel with no internet and no phone.

I’m talking of course about J. Craig Venter’s team’s breakthrough in synthesizing a living organism, almost from scratch – published in the journal Science on Thursday and speculated on by everyone from Nobel laureates to Vatican officials since…

Having followed synthetic biology for some time, I’ve been eagerly awaiting the announcement that Venter has finally created a synthetic organism.  So I was more than a little frustrated to miss the first wave of commentaries on this week’s paper.  And coming late to the game, I now find that “Venter Fatigue” is already setting in – making writing a blog that someone wants to read all the harder.

But there are issues and ideas that I think are still worth exploring here.  So this is what I’m going to do:

For today, I thought I would recycle some stuff I wrote on what might be called “digital biology” last year – the potentially disruptive concept underlying synthetic biology that could well herald a new era of how we control the world we live in.  Then, when I’ve had a bit more time to marshal my thoughts, I’ll aim to write something about risks and ethics – and especially the need to place discussions on a science basis, and not get over-distracted by ethical hand-wringing.

But back to “digital biology.”  Last June, I wrote a piece about how our increasing control over matter at the nanoscale is transforming our ability to bend the world to our own ends.  This is what I said about advances in manipulating DNA:

“Thirty years ago, the notion of controlling the code of life itself would have been laughable.  Now it seems within reach.

Over the past few years, the ease with which genetic code can be sequenced has plummeted.  It took 13 years for teams of scientists around the globe to first read the human genome – completing the project in 2001.  In 2007, it took 2 months to sequence the genome of DNA-co-discoverer James Watson.  And by 2013 it is likely that your personal genome could be read in the time it takes to boil an egg.

Of course, sequencing just reads the information – it doesn’t tell you how to use it.  But here’s the important thing – sequencing genomes transforms the information from the physical domain to the digital domain, where it can be experimented with and engineered in new ways.  While restricted to the physical world, there were always going to be limitations to how effectively we manipulated and controlled genetic material.  In the digital domain, those limitations are gone.  Cheap affordable sequencing is ushering in the age of digital biology.

However, playing around with genetic information on computers would be little more than a novelty if it weren’t for one further advance – the plummeting cost of DNA synthesis.  This completes the loop between the physical and digital worlds.  Now, once you have uploaded your genome into the computer and digitally enhanced it, the technology exists – or soon will – to download the new genome back into reality.  It’s a technology that promises to enable an incredibly sophisticated level of genetic engineering.  It allows brand new genetic code to be written on the computer, tested out in virtual space, then downloaded back into an organism.  It even allows brand new organisms to be designed and created from scratch.

Synthetic biology - blurring the boundaries between the digital and physical domains

This possibility was pushed home last year when Craig Venter’s team synthesized the genome of a bacterium – Mycobacterium genitalium – from scratch.  The team has yet to insert the synthesized DNA into a cell, and thus achieve – in effect – the creation of life from laboratory chemicals.  But it seems only a matter of time before this is achieved.

We’re not quite there yet with the technology that will allow us to manipulate biology at the nanoscale.  But it’s coming.  And when it does, the level of control we have had over matter for the past ten centuries will seem like child’s play.”

This last week’s announcement takes the idea of designing living systems in the digital domain – then reading them back into reality – to the next level.  Okay so you can split hairs and say that Venter and his crew didn’t technically synthesize life – they needed a few existing components (the machinery of the cell) to start with.  But it really is splitting hairs, because the synthetic genome included the code that allowed this machinery to be constructed from scratch in subsequent generations of the organism.  The breakthrough here was the ability to write the complete code for an organism on a computer, then translate it into a real, living, replicating life form.

Of course, there’s a ton of science that we don’t understand here – and given the enormous complexity of living organisms, it will be a long time before we come close to coming close to being able to design a completely new organism from scratch that does what we intend it to do.  But that’s not the point here.  What we are seeing is the beginning of a new technology, where what we understand is secondary to what we can do.

We may be a long way from perfectly designed organisms.  But technology isn’t about perfection – it’s about doing something practical to achieve a tangible result. And to do that, you don’t always need to know why things work; just that they do work.

Without a doubt, this week’s announcement marks the dawn of a new technology – a technology that blurs the boundaries between the digital domain and living organisms. The state of the science may still be lacking.  But then how often has a new technology been preceded by a mature science? Usually the technology and the science progress in tandem, and it’s not unusual for the technology to lead the science.

Add to this the incredible progress that has been made in engineering complex systems over the past 100 years – leading to technologies where the whole is greater than the contribution of any individual or team working on it – and the stage is set for Venter’s team’s achievements to profoundly influence how we interact with the living world.

The question is, are we up to handling it?

Note: apologies for an appallingly cliched title, although I was surprised no-one else has used it yet.  Guess that’s what jetlag and internet deprivation do for you!

A guest blog by Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California Santa Barbara.

A couple of weeks back, my colleague David Guston wrote here about engaging the public on nanotechnology.   In his piece he gave an excellent overview of the US government’s activities – or relative lack of them – on public engagement in this area.  But I also felt that some questions on why we should encourage public participation in nanotechnology in the first place – and how the government should think about approaching this – were left unanswered.  So to continue where David left off, I would like to explore these questions a little further.

To start with, why do public deliberation on nanotechnology?  The simplest answers are because it’s the right thing to do, and because it’s a useful thing to do.

Let’s take those one at a time:

Public participation is the right thing to do

Public participation in nanotechnology is the right thing to do because it’s a legal mandate – incorporation of some element of public participation is a required element of the Congressional authorization for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). It also enables citizens to participate more fully in the democratic process.

The normative view is that within a democracy it is right and proper to have all affected parties involved in decisions that may affect them (Fiorino 1989). Such democratic values may indeed compete with technocratic values, but the “participatory turn” (Whitmarsh 2009) with its resultant legal basis for participation is now an established fact in many countries.

If you accept that potentially affected publics have a right to know, at least about risks, the issue of how to gain their ‘informed consent’ to those risks is a complex ethical matter because nanotechnology involves an entire class of technologies that span almost all industries, and the potentially affected include most of society. Public deliberation is one method for achieving informed consent in this upstream context, although a comprehensive public deliberation effort in the US would necessarily be extensive in scope given the potential ubiquity of distribution of nano materials, products, and waste.

Both Centers for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) established by the National Science Foundation – David’s at Arizona State University (ASU) and the one I direct at the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) – have engaged in public deliberation exercises.  But efforts to date have been on a small scale—they’ve necessarily included a very limited number of participants, and have focused only on a limited subset of the spectrum of applications (CNS-UCSB’s 10 public deliberation workshops in 2007 and 2009 focused on nanotech energy/environment applications or health/enhancement applications; CNS-ASU’s 6 workshops in 2007 looked exclusively at human enhancement technologies). On-line deliberation and the linking of selective face-to-face deliberation results with comprehensive survey data for validating opinions and views in national samples offer some potential methods for future larger scale nano deliberations, as long as diverse publics are included. We are pursuing both strategies on a pilot basis at CNS-UCSB.

In terms of public participation in the NNI, fulfillment of the normative purpose would mean allocating sufficient resources to conduct a meaningful public deliberation effort that is iterative and involves both lay persons and scientists.  Even though this might take some resources away from technological R&D in the short term, this would be in the interest of creating “socially sustainable technologies” (i.e., development of nanotechnologies that will be good for society in the long term).

Public deliberation is a useful thing to do

In addition to the normative reasons cited above, public participation is potentially useful for both instrumental and substantive purposes (Fiorino 1989). Instrumental here means that public participation contributes to other goals – for example, building community support for local development; or creating a basis of trust that will sustain support in the event of risk events.  Substantive contributions refer to the actual knowledge and learning that can take place through deliberative processes, particularly the contribution of local knowledge to successful outcomes – for example, better understanding of more useful applications of multi-purpose devices.

There are two foundational resources that have laid the groundwork for the current state of knowledge about this, both of them publications based on National Research Council panels:

Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Stern and Fineberg 1996) made the case for how making risks understandable to the public and avoiding risk controversies and conflict involve far more than just translating scientific knowledge (e.g. risk assessment). In it, they set out the main framework for “analytic-deliberative” decision making as a process that includes both analysis and public deliberation, brings lay and scientific experts together in an iterative process that promotes co-learning not just for particular decisions, and, when done well, can lead to better outcomes in terms of a number of important criteria.

Much more recently, in Dec 2008 Dietz and Stern’s National Research Council volume Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, reported on a panel specifically convened to address questions of whether public participation in environmental decision making was beneficial to the process and outcomes or if, as some detractors have argued, involving lay people in complex technical decision making slowed or even derailed the process. They concluded that when conducted properly, public participation as a part of government or private sector organizations for assessment, planning and decision making (i.e., not political participation for voting or forming interest groups) contributes to the quality, legitimacy and capacity of decision making.

Getting back to nanotechnology, the NNI has not yet specified the form that public participation should take.

Key aspects of successful public participation and deliberation have been shown to include:

• “early and often” (meaning that you need to begin the process early in development and continue interaction often);
• procedural fairness (even if publics don’t agree with agencies, if they feel they’ve been treated openly, respectfully and fairly, this leads to demonstrably better outcomes, such as less litigation) (Chess and Purcell 1999);
• well managed process, including a clear purpose, adequate resources, genuine commitment of participants to the process, timely outputs, and a focus on learning; and
• implementation that includes breadth of participants, intensity of interaction (particularly face-to-face), and integration of scientific expertise (Dietz & Stern 2008).

Thus, in addition to the political will to include participation as an element of the NNI, there is considerable basis for asserting that public participation in nanotech R&D can be beneficial to the quality, legitimacy and capacity of the NNI. Public participation in nanotechnology development that:

1. addresses needs and concerns of publics (and publics for this purpose would include businesses, NGOs, and communities, as well as individuals),
2. reduces mistrust between stakeholders (e.g., academic or industry labs and surrounding communities), and
3. results in all participants (including scientists) being better informed about the issues and about one another, and produces meta-learning about participatory processes

would be a highly successful outcome for the NNI. On the other hand, one enduring and detrimental feature of public participation efforts has been the “reluctance of government to grant influence to participatory efforts,” and another common cause of poor public participation outcomes is when participation is aimed at “boosterism” for an agency or program (Chess and Purcell 1999).

Clearly, public deliberation in the NNI, if it is to be effective, needs to take heed of these hard-won lessons, and knowledgeable researchers will be reluctant to take part in an effort that is likely to fail for such predictable reasons.

___________________________________

References

Chess, Caron and Kristen Purcell. 1999. Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Env Sci & Tech 33(16): 2685-2692.

Dietz, Thomas and Paul C. Stern, Eds. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, National Research Council. Washington: National Academies Press.

Fiorino, Daniel. 1989. Environmental risks and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 14:501-547.

Stern, Paul D. & Harvey V. Fineberg, Eds. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Committee on Risk Characterization, commission on Behavioral and social Sciences and Education. National Research Council. Washington: National Academies Press.

Whitmarsh, Lorraine. 2009. Review of Dietz and Stern, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Environmental Science & Policy 12:1069-1072.

Does the US need more public participation in assessing technologies and their potential impact on society, and informing decisions on their development and use?  Richard Sclove – author of a new report on technology assessment – thinks yes; but only as part of a new paradigm for technology assessment.  The report, published today by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Science & Technology Innovation Program, announces plans for a new Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology Network (ECAST), which would compliment expert input with participatory technology assessment to help inform decisions on developing new and emerging technologies.

I’m currently reading Robert Winston’s new book “Bad Ideas? An arresting history of our inventions” (slowly, as regular followers of 2020 Science will realize!).  Starting from the earliest indications of innovation amongst humans – from tool-making and the development of language – and ending up at the present day, he takes a hard look at what innovation has cost us over the ages, as well as what we have gained from it.  Reading it, one can’t help ask the question (as I suspect the author intended) – are we slaves to innovation, or can we control the process?

Technology Assessment in all its guises is a rejection of the former, and an attempt to embrace the latter.  It is based on the assumption that, if only we can get some insight into where a particular technology innovation is going and what the broader social and economic consequences might be, we should be able to tweak the system to increase the benefits and decrease the downsides.

As an idea, it’s an attractive one.  Having the foresight to identify potential hurdles to progress ahead of time and make decisions that help overcome them at an early stage makes sound sense.  If businesses wants to develop products that are sustainable over long periods, governments want to craft policies that have long-reaching positive consequences and citizens want to support actions that will benefit them and  their children, any intelligence on the potential benefits and pitfalls associated with a new technology is invaluable to informed decision-making.

The trouble is, making sense of a complex future where technology, social issues, politics, economics and sheer human irrationality collide, is anything but straight forward.

Back in 1972, the US Congress established the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to handle exactly this type of challenge.  For 23 years , OTA took a relatively formal and meticulous approach to assessing emerging technologies for Congress, based on expert input and analysis.  When the Office was closed in 1995, many considered it a blow to informed policy on science and technology within the US.  Ironically, as the US (along with the rest of the world) now squares up to some of the most complex science and technology-based issues and opportunities ever to face humanity, the tools that might help inform forward-looking decisions on how to navigate this technology-driven future are rather conspicuously lacking.

Into this void comes today’s report from Dr. Richard Sclove – founder and senior Fellow of the Loka Institute.  Sclove argues that we need to take a proactive role in determining the trajectory of technology for the good of society, but that a changing world demands new approaches – the OTA of 1972 (he suggests) would look conspicuously out of place in today’s fast pace, interconnected world.  Specifically, he argues that citizens need a place at the table – not instead of experts, but as a valuable voice alongside those of others in evaluating how technology-driven futures might most appropriately evolve.

Richard makes a strong case for what he terms participatory Technology Assessment – or pTA.  He argues that in a democracy, citizens should have the right to help decide how technology is developed and used; that citizens bring a range of social values to the table which are critical to determining technology trajectories and can help select potentially more sustainable ways forward; that engaging a broad base of people expands the knowledge base on which decisions are made; that citizen involvement can improve the effectiveness of decisions that are made, and help avoid costly mis-steps; and that pTA can even lead to expedited conclusions (although I am still struggling to see how asking more people for their perspectives and input can lead to a faster process).

The challenge is, how to make this work – and work in a way where citizens are fully engaged in the process of decision making, rather than just being a token presence.

Sclove quickly dismisses the option of re-instating the OTA (or a similar institutionalized body) as being outdated, unlikely to embrace pTA (the OTA did not engage citizens in technology assessment generally), and too focused on serving institutions within government rather than society as a whole.   He also challenges the suggestion that sufficient technology assessment is already carried out by a range of government offices, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Instead, an alternative is offered – an independent network of institutions that work together to carry out a combination of expert and participatory technology assessment.

The result is ECAST – the Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology Network; a proposed independent network of organizations that can facilitate and conduct technology assessments that are not only responsive to 21st century challenges, but also make full use of 21st century opportunities.

As presented in the report, ECAST is in the initial stages of formation, supported by the Woodrow Wilson  International Center for Scholars, the Boston Museum of Science, the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Science CheerLeader, and The Loka Institute.  However, there are clearly plans to expand this network.

The model as it stands is based on working through science museums (as a direct link to citizens), universities (bringing innovative ideas and research and analysis capabilities to the table) and non-partisan policy research organizations (providing policy relevance, and interfacing with decision makers).  While at an early stage of development, it clearly draws on the ideas of independence, input from experts and laypersons, and strong connections to policymakers (the report stresses the need for a physical presence in Washington DC).

Does the idea have legs?  I’m not sure yet, although I would be the first to agree that movement along these lines is desperately needed if the US is to develop strategic and sustainable technology innovation policies.  Looking to the future, it’s hard to justify letting innovation run its course without any form of intervention – if the recent economic crisis has taught us anything, it’s that.  As advances in science and technology, global communications and coupling between humanity and the environment in which we live continue to converge together, there is a social and economic imperative to help ensure technology innovation leads to long-term progress.  And assuming that everything will fall out in the wash without proactive intervention is both naive and short sighted.  The only real question is how to go about controlling the future.

I would argue strongly that, as stakeholders in the future, citizens have a right and a responsibility to be a part the process.  Richard’s proposal is definitely a significant move in this direction.  It’s not perfect – I have questions over the legitimacy of the process, sources of funding, the ability of the proposed network to make a difference, and translating academic ideals into practical reality.  Nevertheless, it’s an exciting and innovative step forward, and one that I will be following with interest.

I don’t particularly like the thought that we are slaves to innovation – I may be overly optimistic, but I would like to believe that humanity has the ability to choose future courses that are more likely to improve people’s lives.  But as our “inventions” get increasingly more sophisticated, it’s going to take more than luck and good intentions to ensure that what looks good on paper doesn’t turn out to be yet another “bad idea.” Hopefully, innovations like ECAST will help empower people to work together towards a future in which technology innovation is more likely to solve problems, than create new ones.

_______________________________________

I feel I should add a disclaimer to this post, as Richard Sclove’s report was published by an organization I was a part of until recently – the Science & Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center.  However, I was not in any way associated with the development and writing of the report, and indeed the first time I saw it was earlier today when it was publicly released.

I owe my nearly-thirteen year old son – big-time!  This time next week he will be the proud recipient of an iPad – part birthday present, part relocation “compensation” and part his own personal investment.  But in the meantime, I’m here at 30,000 feet, typing on his intended device – being a kind soul, he graciously allowed me to give it a test run!

Reading all the publicity and chat surrounding the iPad, I’ve been intrigued by it’s potential as a work-aid.  Forget the fancy games, the videos and the photos – I wanted to see if it could make my reluctant road warrior-scientist existence just that little bit easier.

So taking advantage of a short trip to Minneapolis, a shiny new iPad in the closet just begging to be used, and my son’s generosity (I asked first!), I’ve been putting Apple’s latest gizmo through it’s paces.

As I write this, I am coming to the end of 48 hours on the road with the iPad.  In bringing the device with me on this trip, I had a pretty specific aim in mind – to explore how effectively it could replace my laptop while traveling, and whether it would make my life easier.  In other words, is it just an expensive solution looking for a problem, or does it truly have the potential to ease my workflow while on the road?

Out of the box. From the get-go, setting the iPad up was simplicity itself.  First, the packaging is inspired – open the box and all you have is the iPad, a power supply and a USB cable.  This device is designed to be intuitive – you are immediately invited to just switch it on and follow the instructions.  Syncing with iTunes on my laptop and loading up the new apps was a breeze – within a matter of minutes I was ready to rock and roll.

But how did the apps themselves fare?

Editing a Keynote presentation on the iPad

Talking the talk. What most excited me about the iPad was the possibility of using it to give presentations, without having to lug my laptop around with me.  I give a lot of talks, and some years ago I standardized on Apple Keynote as my presentation platform of choice.  So I was more than a little excited by the prospect of using the iPad version of this app.  Scheduled to give a keynote talk at an event on Thursday morning, this was my chance!

There’s been a lot written already about the iPad version of Keynote, and not all of it positive.  Although presentations on the app can look stunning, it isn’t directly compatible with the desktop version of Keynote – custom fonts don’t transfer; there are a limited range of templates available; presenter notes aren’t supported; and the app has a nasty habit of messing up presentations that are transferred back and forth between the iPad and a desktop computer.

Armed with this intelligence, I transferred a  copy of my presentation to the iPad before heading off to the airport, and spent half the flight between DC and Minneapolis tweaking the iPad version.

As it turned out, this wasn’t too hard a task – helped no doubt by the rather minimalist slide design I use.  It took a little time to get to grips with the Keynote iPad app limitations – not being able to group elements on a slide was a bit of a killer for instance – but within an hour I had a slick looking presentation all set to go.

Come Thursday, the actual presentation went seamlessly.  Plugging the iPad into the projector using Apple’s VGA connector and hitting “play” brought up the presentation on the screen immediately, and controlling the flow of slides was simple from the iPad’s screen.  I was impressed – I was able to give a slick, professional looking presentation from a slab of glass and aluminum a fraction of the bulk of my usual laptop.  And it all went without a hitch.

Keynote on the iPad is far from perfect.  But it’s good enough that, if you approach presentations from the perspective of designing them for the device, it works well.  I actually suspect that the simplicity of Keynote on the iPad has the potential to help people design better presentations, precisely because it’s limitations force you to think more about content and delivery.  And I must confess, slideshows on iPad itself can look stunning using the the features that are available.

For me, the’s no question that I would happily use this app in place of my laptop.  For others, Apple will probably need to work on features like handling groups and showing presenters notes (which it is incapable of handling at present) before it’s ready for prime time.

Viewing a publication in Papers on the iPad

The paperless office. I’ve long had fantasies of a portable device that gives me easy access to PDF files while on the go – meeting documents, reports, scientific papers and the like.  When electronic books came into vogue a few years back I had high hopes that I could ditch the stack of papers I constantly seem to cart around with me and transfer them to an ebook.  No such luck – although I gather the Kindle DX is better than most e-books in handling PDF’s, my experiences with other e-books were not happy ones.  So I was particularly interested in how the iPad would fare in this respect.

Before setting off, I loaded up two very different apps for working with PDF files: PDF Reader HD for viewing PDF files, and Papers – an app that allows you to carry a searchable library of academic papers around on the iPad, and sync them with your main computer.

Both apps displayed documents in what I can only describe as stunning detail.  It’s hard to over-emphasize how good these files looked on the iPad – the closest thing in my experience to date to having the original paper copy in my hand, but with the advantages of being able to search and scan the documents in ways impossible with hard copies.  I loved being able to magnify plots in papers and inspect them in depth, all with a flick of my fingers.  This feature alone made the iPad experience richer than accessing the papers on my laptop or as printed documents.

The Papers app allows documents to be synced between the iPad and a computer running the desktop version of the program.  The system worked smoothly – my only gripe being that you are limited to having 1000 papers on the iPad.

Transferring files to PDF Reader HD is a little more convoluted – you either need to use the iTunes interface, or transfer files via an internet browser over a wireless network.  The system works, but it’s messy.  Nevertheless, it was relatively easy to transfer a suite of useful files to the iPad so that I had them at my fingertips.

Taking note. I’ve recently started using EverNote to take and sync notes between my laptop and my iPhone.  The basic service – which is free – stores indexable notes in the ‘cloud,’ allowing access to them from wherever you are – a great idea for jotting down ideas and keeping track of thoughts while on the go.  EverNote for the iPad extends the number of devices these notes can be written and accessed on.

Despite the occasional crash, I found EverNote a useful tool on the iPad.  In the meetings I was in I could quickly jot down notes, and retrieve them later from whichever device I had access to – whether it was the iPad, iPhone or laptop.  What I particularly liked was how easy it was to break out the iPad and type something in – faster than getting the laptop out, and easier than typing on my iPhone.  In fact, I have found typing on the iPad in landscape mode as fast, and nearly as easy, as typing on my laptop.  I suspect it’s because I am a rather sad two-finger typer (a friend who is a touch typist was completely flummoxed by the iPad keyboard), but I had no problems with the virtually keyboard.

The free version of EverNote only allows access to notes when on line – there’s an annual charge for accessing notes off-line.  As it isn’t always possible to access a Wi-Fi internet connection with the current iPad, this is a potential issue.  But overall,I found EverNote on the iPad a great way to keep track of thoughts ideas and the occasional important piece of information that came my way.

Checking email on the iPad

Keeping in touch. Email was great on the iPad.  It took just a few minutes to establish access to my Mobile Me account and my University Exchange account, both of which allowed access to my email, calendar and contacts from the iPad.  Working with the built in email client was simple but effective – very similar to using the iPhone, but on a big screen!

My calendar on the iPad using the built in app was gorgeous!  Not only was it easy to flick through, add and edit appointments, but the slick presentation made working with my schedule extremely easy.  In terms of an organizer, I would rank using the iPad far above the iPhone or my laptop.  This is the digital calendar I’ve been waiting for all my life – I just didn’t know it until now!

The iPad’s address book was similarly slick, but didn’t quite have the wow appeal of the calendar. It was simple and effective though, and again much easier to access than having to pull my laptop out and power it up.

What I particularly appreciated with the calendar and address book applications was the ability to sync with various sources.  As I sit here typing, I can access my Exchange and Mobile Me calendars, as well as a separate set of appointments and contact that are synced with my laptop.  It makes working with my information in the way I want to surprisingly easy.

Getting organized with Things on the iPad

Getting organized. I use Things from Cultured Code on my iPhone to keep track of the myriad tasks I need to keep track of – it’s a beautifully simple application that works well with my less than organized approach to life, rather than forcing me to adopt a restrictively awkward work patten.  Initially I was hesitant to load the iPad version of Things up because of the cost – it will set you back close to $20.  Fortunately, the kind folks at Cultured Code allowed me access to an evaluation copy for the purpose of this review.

Things on the iPad works extremely well.  It has the same functionality as the iPhone version, but with the larger screen it is transformed into a far more productive tool.  And compared to the desktop version of the application, i found having my to-do list at my fingertips while on the go invaluable.

When on the same Wi-Fi network as a desktop version of Things, the application will sync information seamlessly between the iPad and the computer.  I had no problem syncing Things between my laptop, iPad and iPhone in this way – no matter where I was or what I was using, I knew what I was supposed to be doing.

The bottom line. Overall, this has been a great experience with the iPad.  I’ve loved the immediacy and accessibility of the device – it’s placed information and tools at my fingertips that have helped me work faster and more efficiently, and all with a minimally short learning curve.

Don’t get me wrong, the iPad is far from perfect – there are things it doesn’t do that a PC does.  But the way I have been using it, I think that some of the downsides that have been discussed on line over the past couple of weeks aren’t as relevant to me as they perhaps are to others.  The iPad i’ve been using hasn’t got over-hot during use.  I haven’t had problems connecting to the internet.  The lack of multitasking hasn’t been a serious issue.  I haven’t been stymied by a lack of Flash when accessing the web.  And typing has been straight forward on the virtual keyboard – the first draft of this piece was typed in Pages on the the iPad with no trouble at all.

That said, the iPad clearly is not a laptop replacement.  For example, I had hoped to be able to post this blog direct from the iPad, but difficulties using WordPress from the device would have meant posting the piece without formatting, hot links or images.  And the file handling is rather crude and limited.  But as an extension to a laptop and a means to making life on the road less stressful and more productive, the device is a wonder.  Think of it as a smart digital briefcase that you can pack your important files into when you hit the road, and that connects you to your digital world when your laptop is just too cumbersome and your smart phone just too small.

So, after 48 hours, what’s the verdict?  Is the iPad essential?  No. Does it make life easier?  Without a doubt.  Is it a worthwhile productivity tool for the itinerant scientist?  Absolutely.  Do I want one?  What do you think?!

In other words, I’m sold on the thing.  The only challenge now is how to scrape the dosh together to buy my own after this one has been returned to it’s rightful owner!  On the other hand, I wonder if he would miss it…

___________________________

Endnotes. Someone mentioned in passing that you can also play games, listen to music and watch videos on the iPad.  Honestly though, who would want to indulge in such frippery when you have such a great set of productivity tools at your fingertips…

Actually, I would have loved to have spent time within the wider world of iPhone apps, but time and schedule didn’t allow on this occasion – and I was supposed to be evaluating it as a business tool.  But I can say – from my limited experience – that photos on the iPad are stunning, video works exceedingly well, and web-browsing was as smooth as any experience I have had (assuming I wasn’t trying to view Flash-based sites).  Even the built-in speaker is adequate.

I was also fascinated by the increasing range of useful apps, as opposed to entertainment apps.  I only had time to load up and play with a simple calculator app and Wolfram Alpha – both were impressive though.  Wolfram Alpha in particular looks like it’s worth exploring in depth on this platform – the app takes full advantage of the format, and provides a portal to a vast information resource.  I can see this taking of as a serious platform for science  and education apps.

From this very brief encounter, the real bottom line is that this is a highly innovative and intuitive device that I can see becoming increasingly useful in the future to scientists and other professionals, whether on the road or not.

Screenshot of Wolfram Alpha on the iPad - an app that begs to be explored more!

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) plans to form a new interagency group on emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and synthetic biology.  The announcement was make by Tom Kalil, deputy director for policy at OSTP, at a government-organized workshop on Risk Management Methods and Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology held last week.  The AAAS policy alert (not available on the web yet available here) noted that the group is intended to provide research funding agencies and regulatory agencies an opportunity to discuss emerging policy issues.

Unfortunately I wasn’t at the workshop in Washington DC where Kalil made his remarks, and so don’t know any more about this than was included in the brief note from AAAS.  However, from what was reported, this seems a sensible move – if carried through thoughtfully.

Nanotechnology – arguably the US government’s flagship emerging technology – has highlighted the need for smart policy decisions when developing new technologies.  What started as a science-based initiative to promote new research, stimulate innovation and create new jobs, has increasingly become entangled in the social, political and economic impacts of science and technology promotion.  Ten years after President Clinton established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) – the initiative that coordinates nanotechnology activities across federal agencies – there remains an uneasy relationship between the desire to drive science discovery and technology innovation, and the need to understand and manage the potential safety, societal and economic impacts of this push.

At the heart of this uneasy relationship is a built-in resistance to asking “un-askable” questions.

The NNI’s vision is “a future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society.” The vision is built on a belief that increasing our ability to control matter at the nanoscale is essential, that this will lead to a technology revolution, and that this revolution will benefit society. This is a powerful driver, and has contributed largely to the success of the NNI specifically and nanotechnology more broadly.  But it does mean that people who ask difficult questions tend to be tarred by a brush that’s reserved for whistle blowers and inconvenient activists.

This has been seen in the slow and sometimes reluctant inclusion of research into potential health and environmental impacts under the NNI umbrella; a resistance to developing government-wide policies on developing nanotechnology responsibly (a resistance usually justified by the NNI being a science initiative, not a policy initiative); and negligible efforts to include citizens who stand to gain or loose from nanotechnology as partners in the process (see David Guston’s piece on this for instance).  There has also been a surprising lack of analysis of the broader economic impacts of nanotechnology promotion – as opposed to the economic benefits.  How many companies and economies have invested in nanotechnology simply because the US set an aggressive lead – and what has been the economic impact of this “follow the leader” mentality?

The reality is that in any initiative dedicated to promoting a given technology, people and organizations that raise issues and recommend actions that threaten to undermine this promotion risk being marginalized.  And this ends up playing into personal and agency self-interest – why give up a position of influence and the promise of funding for the sake of asking difficult questions? I can only imagine what the response to a NNI member who suggested the usefulness of the initiative should be re-examined would be – I suspect it would not be pretty!  Yet if sound and strategic policies are to be developed that benefit citizens, the “un-askable” questions are often the most important ones.

Looking forward, there is a need to develop emerging technology-related policies that are balanced by considerations other than technology promotion. alone  But on top of this, there is a need to develop more holistic approaches to emerging technologies in general.  Nanotechnology is not the only new technology on the block – technologies emerging under the banners of synthetic biology,  robotics, geoengineering, cognitive enhancement and a plethora of others are coming up fast.  Then there are the gray areas between these where convergence leads to increasingly complex and ill-defined technologies.  In the face of accelerating innovation, should policies be developed for each and every new technology that comes along?  This would be exceedingly difficult to achieve now, and an impossible task I suspect a few years down the line.

One solution – and the one the White House seems to be pursuing – is to take a high-level approach to emerging technology policy that ensures cross-agency coordination, identifies emerging hot-spots and enables a balanced and socially-responsible approach to emerging opportunities and issues.  In some ways this is a role that the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment within the US Congress played.  But looking to an increasingly technologically-complex future, I suspect that a complete rethink of how to ensure the benefits of new technologies are realized and the dangers avoided is needed.

Depending on how it develops, the new White House interagency group could well lead to coordinated action on emerging technologies that ensures policies are responsive to the needs of citizens – not just those who have a vested interest in technology promotion.  But I can guarantee it will hit resistance from agencies, organizations and individuals who stand to loose out from this move – including those who stand to loose funding or influence as a result. of it  Yet if the US government is to embrace technology development that benefits society as a whole – especially in light of President Obama’s Innovation Strategy – it surely must create a policy forum where the “un-askable” questions can be asked; where no one interest group within the government can dominate proceedings; and where hurdles to social and economic prosperity can be identified, assessed and addressed without fear of agencies and individuals being marginalized.

Done right, this could be a critical step toward the US developing a 21st century approach to 21st century technologies.

_______________________________________

In order to ensure the new group’s effectiveness, OSTP are going to have to grapple with some tough issues.  These will include, amongst others:

Links to technology-specific initiatives. I would imagine that the new group will function best as  a complementary activity to initiatives such as the NNI.  There is clearly benefit to having strong technology-promotion initiatives like the NNI, and it would seem foolish to diminish these.  And initiatives like this are essential for intelligence on where emerging technologies are going.  Yet at the same time it is important that policy decisions are decoupled somewhat from technology promotion.  One way to do this is to ensure strong links between initiatives such as the NNI and the new group.

Agency-engagement at a senior level. To avoid yet another talking-shop, the new group will need to engage agencies at a senior level – ensuring that participants have decision-making authority.

Balance of interest. To the extent that it is possible across federal agencies, the group is more likely to be effective if there is balance between different interests – including science, business, economic growth, social development and prosperity, and oversight.

Funding. One fear of establishing a group like this is that it will undermine efforts to fund oversight and social impacts-related research through initiatives such as the NNI.  This is a serious concern, although it would be dangerous to place research funding interests within specific sectors ahead of sound policy formulation.  Nevertheless, it would be prudent to both ensure the new group does not adversely impact on current funding into the challenges and potential impacts of emerging technologies, and to develop mechanisms to support and stimulate new funding to address strategically important issues.

Stakeholder input. It is hard to imagine how the planned interagency group will function effectively without non-government stakeholder input.  In the absence of balanced input from different stakeholder groups – representatives of business, citizens and academia in particular – cross-government policies on emerging technologies are unlikely to be relevant, responsive or effective.  This will almost definitely mean setting up a Federal Advisory Committee to the group  to ensure informed and representative input.

To coincide with my move to the University of Michigan, Seed Magazine has just published a series of ten questions and answers on what I do and what motivates me as a scientist.  You can read how well I fared (or didn’t, as the case may be) with questions as diverse as “How do you explain your job at cocktail parties?” to “Why do you do science?” on the Seed Magazine website.

I was surprised to hear that Seed sometimes have to hard-sell the idea of this series to scientists – who doesn’t want to pontificate about what they are reading, or who they would most like to meet?  But I must confess, answering questions like “Why do you do science?” and “What inspires you?” was tougher than I imagined.

Previous articles in Seed’s “10 Questions” series include:

• James Kasting on the odds of finding another earth-like planet and the power of science fiction;
• Kirsten Bomblies on the immune system of plants and how young scientists can keep inspiration alive;
• John Rinn onwhy we should dumpster-dive in our genomes and the inspiration of a middle-distance runner; and
• Amy Cannon on low-energy solar cells, training scientists to weed out toxicity, and what makes benign chemistry such a good business proposition.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/04/06/cultivating-ingenuity-humility-in-an-increasingly-complex-world/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2010/03/22/sex-sexuality-and-science-a-novices-guide/ http://2020science.org/2010/03/22/sex-sexuality-and-science-a-novices-guide/#comments Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:13:22 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2977

A year or so ago, there was a challenge circling round the blogging community to write on a subject you know nothing about.  It’s a little late, but I think this blog quite possibly qualifies as my contribution.

Earlier this year I rather foolishly agreed to rise to a challenge set me on the 2020 Science Facebook page by Jasmine Andrews: Write a blog about science and sexuality.

Now I wouldn’t want you to get the idea that I know nothing about sex.  But lets be honest here: When it comes to the finer points of sex and sexuality, I’m male, I’ve lived a sheltered life, and I’m a scientist! Actually, I don’t think the first and last points count, but you get the idea.

Nevertheless, a promise is a promise, so without further ado, here is the first (and quite possibly the last) 2020 Science blog on sex, sexuality and science.

Approaching this blog, I was immediately faced with a dilemma – not only is this an area well outside my expertise (not to mention, comfort zone), but the links between science and sexuality are convoluted and complex to say the least.  It’s not that there is a lack of material – a quick Google search on “Science” and “Sexuality” throws up literally millions of links, including one to The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.  But a cursory glance suggests this “literature” is dominated by the science of sexuality rather than how science impacts on sexuality.

It’s this second question that intrigues me.  There’s been a lot of research carried out into the biology, physiology and psychology of sex and sexuality, and this has led to a greater understanding of us as individuals as well as us as a society. It has also led to some rather ill-informed – barbaric even – actions in the past, as people have tried to use science to justify suppressing or otherwise controlling sexuality. But how about the secondary impacts of science and technology on sexuality?  Have advances in scientific knowledge and technology innovation changed more generally our perceptions and realizations of ourselves as sexual beings?

I’m sure this has been written about extensively somewhere.  But in the spirit of the challenge set me, I thought I would try and think through this question for myself.

Being quite literally a novice here, I thought I would start by trying to conceptualize – from my limited understanding – how sexuality, sex, society and science might relate to each other.  This is what I ended up with:

A rather simple representation of how sex, sexuality and science might be related

What intrigued me in sketching out this “model” was what affects the dynamic between sex and sexuality – both for individuals and within social groups.  The result is more a model of my own thought processes – so no guarantees that it is either accurate or meaningful.  But it did help me begin to tease out how advances in science and technology might impact on sex and sexuality.

The model is built around four core subjects: Sex – the physical interaction between two people (and no, I’m not going to define what does or doesn’t constitute “sex”); sexuality – how people experience and express themselves as sexual beings; the individual person; and the social group they are a part of.

The dynamic between these four subjects is complex, and is influenced by a number of inter-related drivers.  In this model I included four drivers that seemed to make sense in terms of the four subjects, but I’m sure there are others:

• Procreation is fairly self-explanatory: passing on genetic material to the next generation (or, in the vernacular, “making babies”).
• Bonding refers to the emotional as well as physical bonds that are created and reinforced through sex.
• Control reflects how sex is used to establish, define and enforce relationships between people and within social groups – either subtly or overtly.  And
• Fulfillment is a bit of a ragbag of emotional, psychological and physiological drivers associated with, amongst other things, pleasure, contentment, comfort, security and release.

Surrounding the subjects and drivers are three influencing factors: society, religion and science.  Society and religion are two obvious factors – each having a well-established if not necessarily well-understood influence on sex and sexuality.  The third – science, – represents how advances in science understanding and  technology innovation potentially influence sex and sexuality.

The model laid out above sets the scene for exploring how science might impact on sexuality.  But to be useful, it needs to be flexed a little.

By weighting the influencing factors and drivers by their relative significance within society, the resulting impact on the four subjects might be explored.  Looking back to a hypothetical science-poor society for instance, the model might look something like this:

Exploring social-sexual dynamics in a science-poor society

Here we have a scenario where the influence of society and religion – through social and religious norms and expectations – exert far greater influence than science on the subjects and drivers within the model.  Assuming that society and religion emphasize social stability and sustainability, their influence over the drivers can be represented by larger or smaller circles of effect.  In this case the procreation driver is heavily emphasized (sustainability), while the fulfillment driver is de-emphasized (of secondary importance to procreation and social stability).  Bonding is emphasized where it strengthens social cohesion, and control is kept in check, ensuring that a social hierarchy is maintained, but not over-strained.

The result is a depiction of a society that is focused on the good of the group and sex as an act, rather than the individual and sexuality.

OK so it’s just a naive and crude model.  But nevertheless this particular assessment does lead to a picture that resonates with how sex and sexuality have been positioned within some societies in the past.

So having checked that the model makes some sort of sense, what happens if we ramp up the influence of science?  We might get something like this:

Exploring social-sexual dynamics in a science-rich society

Here, the influence of society and religion have been decreased and science’s influence increased, reflecting a situation similar to the modern day – at least in some parts of the world.

The impact on this shift of influence on the four drivers is somewhat speculative, but interesting nevertheless.  First, the significance of procreation is decreased – we’ve seen clearly over the past few decades how increasingly effective contraceptives have decoupled sex from procreation.  Correspondingly, fulfillment is increased.  This is a response in part to the decoupling of sex and procreation enabled by advances in science and technology.  But it is also driven by a greater understanding of the biology, physiology and psychology of sex that science has enabled, which opens the door wider to understanding the roles of sex and sexuality in living a fulfilled life.  The bonding driver is also increased slightly, as science and technology both inform and better-enable the use of sex as a means of strengthening interpersonal relationships.

Then there is control.  I have no evidence for this, but I suspect that advances in science and technology are somewhat ambivalent  factors when it comes to how sex is used to establish, define and enforce relationships and hierarchies.  Given the biological and psychological drive to procreate and social complexities surrounding sex, I suspect that sex and sexuality will always have potential to be used to control, manipulate and intimidate others – it’s hard to imagine science changing this (I’m not an optimist when it comes to scientific enlightenment leading to better people!).  Where science could have an indirect impact though is in decreasing the influence of social and religious norms on the control driver.  By lowering the influence of these constraints, advances in science and technology could potentially lead to an increase in how sex is used to exert control over people.

This is all highly speculative.  But following the assessment through shows a relative increase in the influence of science over social and religious norms as emphasizing the individual over the group, and sexuality over sex.

Of course, this could all be groundless bar-psychology.  But a shift in emphasis to sexuality rather than just sex, and the individual rather than the the social group, does align crudely with trends in western society.

Whether this is because of an increasing influence of science is rather conjectural.  In reality, there will be a number of intertwined influencing factors – including changing social and religious norms.

The bottom line is that it’s possible to make a plausible association between general advances in science and technology and changes in personal and social perceptions of sex and sexuality.  But to take these associations and the model they are built on too seriously would be foolish, to say the least.

After all, what do I know?  I’m just a novice!

_______________________________

Note: Despite the somewhat frivolous tone of this piece, there is some serious thought behind it.  Nevertheless, the model above is a long way from being  a strong one.  In finishing the piece off, the positioning of the control driver has been bugging me for instance – I’m not convinced of its placement in the “individual” and “sex” quadrant.  Clearly, there is room for “Science and sexuality 2.0!”

A new report released today from the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Expert Group on Science and Trust emphasizes the need to address risk and uncertainty in developing and using science and technology within society.  “Acknowledging risk and uncertainty” is the second of eight broad aspirations from the independent group, established to develop a UK action plan to “enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “license to operate” is socially robust.”

The report “Starting a National Conversation about Good Science” [PDF, 478 KB] is a rich, informative and insightful document, that demands careful consideration.  It comes out of a group assembled to consider new mechanisms to increase public trust in science and engineering; review the impact of the existing science-related ethical code of practice; examine how movement of knowledge and people across the different sectors can be facilitated in order to maximize the benefits and impacts of science and society activities; and think about better ways to evaluate the impacts of science and society initiatives.  Despite this being a purely British affair, many of the recommendations are relevant far beyond the confines of a UK-centered “national conversation,”  and will hopefully stimulate a global dialogue on what is a global challenge.

Amidst the eight “broad aspirations” of the group, which span public judgment about science and awareness of the scientific process, to underpinning science-informed decision-making and good science governance, I was particularly struck by an emphasis on risk and uncertainty.  This may be because in a few weeks I will becoming increasingly involved in risk, uncertainty and science-informed decision-making, as I take over as Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan.  But beyond this, I was struck by the group’s recognition that, from the publics’ various perspectives, uncertainties surrounding science and technology – their implications in particular – are often more important than the science and technology themselves.

The overarching aim of the Science and Trust Expert Group -  and of this report – was

“To enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “licence to operate” is socially robust.”

In this context,the group recommended that

“Expert advice to Government should identify and characterize uncertainties; policy makers should communicate clearly actions that take account of inevitable uncertainties; efforts should be made to support public judgements about risks and uncertainties.”

In particular, the report emphasizes the need to address uncertainties surrounding the potential impacts and benefits of emerging technologies “in the wider context of science and society relations.”

This emphasis on uncertainty is particularly welcome, and closely aligns with where I hope to be taking the University of Michigan Risk Science Center over the next few years.  New technologies – or innovative ways of using existing technologies for that matter – lead to inherently uncertain futures.  There is a great danger of mistaking this uncertainty for risk (risk is a reasonably well-understood chance of something bad happening; uncertainty is a poor understanding of whether good or bad will come out of a course of action) – with the result that there is a tendency to shy away from potentially beneficial technologies, simply because we don’t know how they are going to unfold.  On the other hand, uncertainty means that we do need to move forward carefully, in case there are very real and relevant risks lurking in the shadows.  The trick is to develop better ways of handling uncertainty so that the best possible choices are made.

Being up-front about uncertainty and potential risks associated with science and technology is a critical step toward developing conversations and actions that underpin a science-informed approach to minimizing and otherwise handling uncertainty and risk.  One particularly good resource that the report recommends is A Worriers’s Guide to Risk [PDF, 222 KB] – a one-pager intended to help everyone make more sense of the seemingly unending series of stories on risk.

In its specific recommendations and actions, the Science and Trust Expert Group includes:

• Support Government to take better account of risks and uncertainties in policy making;
• Support public judgements about risks and uncertainties inherent in the scientific advisory process;
• Support policy makers to take better account of public attitudes and values to the risks, benefits and uncertainties in the governance of emerging technologies;
• Enable wider discussions in the media and elsewhere on uncertainty inherent in the scientific process; and
• Enable greater discussion of risk.

Although these are aimed fair and square at the UK, they provide a valuable template for a global conversation about good science, and its role within society.  Hopefully, now that the UK has set the pace, we will see this develop as an International conversation about good science.

A lot of things keep me up at night – everything from the trivial (“did I remember to brush my teeth?”) to the to the profound (“does it matter?” ).  But recently, I’ve been plagued more than usual in the wee small hours by the challenge of developing sustainable and resilient technologies.

Blame it on reading about too many fictional futures where post-apocalyptic dystopias dominate, but I do worry about how to ensure a secure future that depends on highly complex and specialized technologies.

Here’s my problem:  Technologies – or rather, the understanding and skills to use specific technologies – can just as easily be lost as gained.  Just because we as a global society can do something clever now, doesn’t mean that people 10, 20, 50 years down the line will still be able to do it.  Securing and maintaining technological advances requires effort – take our eyes off the ball, and the technology innovation-equivalent of entropy begins to eat away at progress.  And the more dependent we become on complex technologies, the more effort it seems we need to expend to support this dependency.

Which all makes me wonder: Are we are destined to hit a point where our global intellectual capacity is so taken up with maintaining the technological status quo, that we will loose the capacity for further technological innovation?  Or even worse; are we heading for a technology innovation impasse ends up degenerating into an uncertain and unenlightened future?

I have to say, I’m not an optimist here – that is, unless we learn how to build effective technology ratchets.

A mechanical ratchet, as everyone knows, is a device that allows movement in one direction only. By comparison, a technology ratchet can be considered as something that allows technology development to move forward, but prevents or inhibits it from moving backward.  The idea is to find ways to hold onto ground gained through technology innovation, without having to constantly expend huge amounts of effort in doing so.

This is a significant challenge.  Up until the point that we started using our heads and creating our own destiny, the progress of humans – and our evolutionary precursors – was underpinned by a rather robust biological ratchet: evolution.  Evolution is a well-honed ratchet mechanisms that ensures the successes of one generation are passed on to the next though random mutation and natural selection. In effect, progress is hard-wired into an organism’s genetic code, meaning that each subsequent generation is spared the hassle of learning the rules of survival from scratch.  But when we humans started to think for ourselves, we left this biological ratchet behind, leaving us dependent on “soft-wired” technologies that each new generation needs to be taught.

Fortunately, we’ve managed to develop some technology ratchets that have made the process of transferring knowledge from one generation to the next a little easier.  Skills like making fire, using wheels and growing crops have propagated successfully from generation to generation for thousands of years, so we must be doing something right.  But how effective are these ratchets, and are they up to the task of sustaining technology innovation in the 21st century?  The history of technology development has been “lumpy” to say the least – as civilizations have come and gone, technological ground has been lost as well as gained – suggesting that the technology ratchets of the past might be a little creaky, to say the least.

Living in what is probably the most technologically advanced and technology-dependent age of humanity to date, I’m not sure we can rely fully on old and worn technology ratchets – if we are to prevent a precarious technology-dependent society collapsing like a pack of cards at the slightest provocation, we need to proactively develop effective technology ratchets that underpin sustainable and resilient progress.

So what sort of technology ratchets should we be building?  Here are four ideas for starters:

Open-access knowledge-repositories. These used to be called libraries!  Whether stored on paper, digitally, or within cultural and social memories, widespread access to resilient and durable knowledge-bases is an important technology ratchet.  Where knowledge is privileged, easily corrupted, or temporal, it becomes increasingly hard to ensure its endurance across generations.  Ironically, while we now have access to more information than ever before, the resilience and accessibility of the “knowledge” associated within this information is by no means certain.

Skills transfer mechanisms. I was tempted to say “education” here, but what most people consider as education is part of a broader technology ratchet that ensures the skills of one generation are passed on to successive ones.  This includes knowledge transfer.  But it also includes the ability to use this knowledge.  Skills transfer mechanisms will depend on formal education – including “book-learning” and-on-the job training.  But they will also depend on learning in less formal situations – skills passed on by parents and peers, or through social interactions.  I suspect sustainable technology innovation will require more people to acquire and pass on more skills than ever before in order to succeed – and we are going to have to find new ways to achieve this.

Redundancy. Biology works so well because it has built-in redundancy.  The same information is carried by billions of cells, and there are often multiple pathways to achieving the same end.  The result is incredible resilience – throw a curve-ball at biology, and it adjusts and adapts.  It’s something that we could learn from in ensuring resilient technology innovation – redundancy as another technology ratchet.  It’s somewhat counter-intuitive, but developing multiple technology approaches to the same end lessens the chances of loosing critical knowledge and skills.  The way technology innovation currently works, redundancy often falls by the wayside (think technology monopolies for instance).  I suspect we will need to find ways to  overcome this in developing resilient and sustainable technology solutions in the future.

Cultural integration of science and technology. How can technologies be sustained in a society where those dependent on the technology haven’t the first idea of how it works – or what to do if it goes wrong?  When everything is going okay, the current model is one that works well.  But its a model with very little resilience – meaning that when things go wrong (as they are sure to do), things quickly degenerate into a mess.  The alternative is to embed an understanding and appreciation of technology – and the underlying science – within society itself.  Cultural integration of science and technology  provides an effective technology ratchet for preventing slippage in the face of new challenges.  As well as facilitating the passing-on of knowledge and skills across generations, it disperses understanding throughout society and enables informed decision-making in the face of emerging issues.  Unfortunately, many of today’s cultures do not respect science and technology to the degree that is necessary for this technology ratchet to be effective.

Astute readers might spot that these are not new ideas.  But framing them in the context of technology ratchets possibly is.  And maybe – just maybe – by framing them in this way, new light will be shed on how to use them to underpin sustainable and resilient technological progress.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that all this talk of technology ratchets is the product of chronic insomnia, and I ought to stick to safer ground in the early hours – like teeth, for instance.

But I suspect that there’s mileage in the concept.  It seems painfully inefficient to have to support each advance in technology with a sustained and long-term effort to maintain the advance – not to say precarious.  Wouldn’t it be better to develop more effective ways for each generation to lay a solid technological foundation for the following generation to build on – one that isn’t high maintenance?

That, to me, sounds like a technology ratchet.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/07/why-we-need-technology-ratchets/feed/ 16 http://2020science.org/2010/01/29/technology-innovation-davos/ http://2020science.org/2010/01/29/technology-innovation-davos/#comments Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:32:04 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2850

There’s been something of a theme running through my day at The World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos today – getting from A to B.  The “A” in this case is technology innovation, and the “B” the problems we hope it will solve – the big ones like world hunger and disease, as well as some of the smaller ones like making life a little easier and more comfortable for ourselves.  But rather than write directly about the challenge of translating technology innovation into action, I thought I would give you a sense of how things work here – at least in the outer layers of the Davos onion I’m privileged to inhabit – using getting from A to B as an example.

Having skipped the early sessions I got to the Convention Center in Davos mid-morning, to find a message from a BBC World Service reporter waiting for me. After homing in on each other across a crowded floor using the time honored mobile phone “can you see me yet…” method, it transpired he was interested in a few words on a few word on emerging economies and emerging technologies – in particular on how countries like India and China are doing compared to the US.  We did a quick interview there and then, in which I said precisely nothing of note – for which I was kicking myself afterward.  Not because I failed to say all the smart things I could have said about emerging economies (being somewhat dazed and jetlagged, I forgot that I actually knew some interesting stuff here until after the interview), but because today’s the day I’ve been focusing on a new proposal to address global issues surrounding emerging technologies; and I failed completely and utterly to get this into the conversation.  My media gurus would have been in tears had they been there.

So the day started with an opportunity – sadly blown.  Following shortly after this I met with a senior representative from a petrochemicals company – he was interested in talking about technology innovations strategies for the company.  Fortunately, having woken up a bit at this point, I was able to talk about the work we’re doing in the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils on our new emerging technologies proposal – which is designed precisely to help companies, governments, and other groups and institutions get from A to B more effectively when it comes to technology innovation.  So far, one opportunity lost, one grasped.

But the big event of the day was a Global Redesign Initiative ideasLab, where I had the opportunity to present the “big idea” to a bunch of folk who, in principle, would help hone it to perfection.  It was a format I’m not terrifically comfortable with – timed comments addressing five specific questions.  As the proposal coming out of the Global Agenda Council I work with was somewhat complex, I resorted to scripting my comments – it kills the spontaneity, but it’s the only way I know to prevent me launching into a 20 minute lecture, or spouting pure drivel (or both, simultaneously).  The presentation went okay – not brilliant, but adequate.  But then came the quickfire questions, which were supposedly to prime the following 30 minutes of discussion.  To my horror, the challenge of connecting tech innovation to social need – so clear to me – was brought into questioned by my listeners.  The message they left me with was that innovation works very well thank you very much, and who wants a cumbersome global center helping people get from A to B anyway?

Had I misjudged things that badly?

There was worse to come though.  After six five-minute presentations, the group of about 30 people broke into six discussion groups – one for each idea.  Now you know that feeling when you’re the unpopular kid and teams are being picked?  That was me.  I had no-one interested in talking about making technology innovation work.  Not a single soul.  Clearly emerging technology is the unpopular kid on the block when it comes to meetings of senior decision makers.  That, or there was something else no one was telling me about…

I’m pretty sure the lack of interest stemmed from a number of things – a fear of the unfamiliar, blind faith in tech innovation to solve problems as and when they arise, and a certain degree of masking of the difficulties of getting form A to B by retrospective success stories (masking being where a technology inadvertently solves a problem no-one has heard of, and is heralded as a great success – I’m being a tad facetious, but you get the point).

I had the chance to test these suspicions out in the following session – a panel discussion on rethinking how to feed the world, with a highly distinguished group of people.  Luckily, the discussion turned to the role of technology innovation in agriculture and food early on, and at the first opportunity I got my question in: “we talk a lot about the problems we face, and about new innovations, but how do we most effectively get from A to B?”

Bill Gates took up the challenge, and spoke about a very neat use of of synthetic biology (or something approaching it) to create drought and flood-resistant rice plants.  It’s a great example of how innovation has helped create a better product.  But it didn’t answer the question – which was how can we do better than we are doing.  Bill actually answered very intelligently.  But at the same time he seemed to confirm my fear that our success stories so often detract from where we are not doing well, and need to do better.  Especially where they lead to complacency.  (Here I should be very clear that, while Bill Gates confirmed my growing fears that getting people to see the A to B problem is a major challenge in itself, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is doing a tremendous amount to support the innovation side of the equation.)

I was a little more heartened by Ellen Kullman, CEO of DuPont, who circled back to the question later on.  She touched on the problem of finding workable solutions to developing more effective food supplies, acknowledging that you need tech innovation and ways to make it work.  The example she cited was DuPont’s approach to working with local farming communities in Africa, so there is local “ownership” of the innovation.

Maybe I wasn’t as off-track as I was beginning to fear.

The day ended with a private dinner of World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council members.  I sat next to three prominent thought-leaders – a neurologist, an economist and a priest.  And I took the opportunity to burden them with my A to B problem.  Not only did they take me seriously, but we had an excellent discussion about where the ideas behind the proposal made sense, where perhaps they didn’t.  The economist was worried about constraining innovation by trying to match it to needs.  The neurologist on the other hand feared that the process of innovation isn’t driven by social need – so there is a real danger of solving challenges that aren’t problems, while leaving the ones that are untouched.  I forget what the priest said – at some point the conversation got on to the far more entertaining topic of religious jokes.

At the end of the day, maybe I hadn’t convinced someone with deep pockets and influence that the A to B problem is of utmost importance.  But I had had a string of unique opportunities to test the concept out, to refine my own thoughts and ideas, and to develop links that will be of lasting value.  And this more than anything is what Davos is about perhaps – grasping opportunities, making connections, being exposed to new ideas and having your own challenged.

I still believe that we have a real problem on our hands in working out how to get from A to B in translating technology innovation into socially responsive action.  But I now have a far better sense of where the possible solutions lie, and how to help people see not only the challenge, but the possible ways forward.

All in all, not a bad day.

This evening I was invited to talk to a group of industry leaders on alternative solutions to the “carbon” problem at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.  The brief was to be one of three “firestarters” – a bit of a dangerous one if you ask me.  Given the informal setting (this was all off the record and over dinner), my comments were aimed at being provocative and challenging, and were probably more full of holes than the proverbial sieve – perfect material in other words for a blog!

For past 100 years—from the tail end of the industrial revolution, through the chemicals revolution and into the digital revolution—we have been passive observers of our effects on the planet.  Over the next 100 years, we will need to take an active role in managing these effects if we are to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts on large numbers of the world’s population.

Top of the immediate agenda (but by no means the only item on it) is global warming.  We are now so numerous and “industrious” that our actions – in this case the indiscriminate emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – are leading to planet-wide re-actions that threaten the lives and livelihood of millions of people around the globe.  Building a sustainable future will mean actively managing our role in global warming.  And critical to this is controlling the impact of carbon emissions.  We need to get a better handle on where carbon comes from, where it goes, and what it does in between.

In effect, we need to “own” the carbon cycle

The question is, how?  I’d like to suggest that owning the carbon cycle – or at least getting better at managing it – will depend on two apparently contradictory approaches: slowing down, and speeding up.

Slowing down

The carbon cycle is a slow cycle.  It takes tens to thousands of years for carbon to cycle between being released into the atmosphere, absorbed by plants and oceans, and eventually being re-released—this balloons to millennia when you include the sequestration of carbon in rocks and sediment.  And the last thing you want to do to a slow cycle is push it too hard and too fast.  The consequences are unpredictable, could be long lasting, and may well be catastrophic.

If we are to get a better handle on atmospheric carbon and its impact on global warming, we need to learn to match our “carbon speed” to the carbon cycle – to slow down our part in the process.  Not surprisingly, this means using less energy, using alternate sources of energy, and doing more with the energy we have.

The challenge is how to slow down enough to make a difference.  In part, this will depend on finding technology-based solutions to how we generate and use energy.

Conventional technologies get us some of the way to managing our energy-use and carbon emissions.  But not all the way.  We still depend in the main on non-renewable and “dirty” energy sources, and are incredibly wasteful in how we use what we have – convenience still trumps efficiency it would seem.  Emerging technologies on the other hand provide a number of solutions to slowing down our part in the carbon cycle.  For instance, we are developing LED lights that use a fraction of the energy of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs to provide the same levels illumination.  We are learning to modify the genetic code of bacteria in ways that enable them to produce biofuels from renewable and sustainable resources.  And we are constructing lighter materials, better batteries and smart energy grids that allow us to do more with the energy we generate.

Many of these emerging technologies depend on manipulating the world at the scale of atoms and molecules – the building blocks of matter.  It’s a trick we’ve been getting increasingly good at in recent years.  This area of technology often goes under the banner of nanotechnology – the science and technology of doing stuff at the near-atomic scale.  More recently synthetic biology – the science and technology of manipulating living systems at the atomic scale – has been getting increasing press.  In these and related areas, we’re making good progress.

But if we are to succeed in slowing down our part in the carbon cycle we also need new economic and social frameworks in which to operate. We need to think differently about how to develop and use science and technology effectively, and how to predict and overcome potential hurdles to progress.

Speeding up

Then there is speeding up.  It sounds contradictory, but in parallel with slowing down as we take charge of the carbon cycle, we also need to go faster.

We have already pushed the carbon cycle out of equilibrium.  This was not a smart move, as we have started a chain of events that are going to be tough to control. As a result, we need to move fast to mitigate the potential consequences of our current actions if we are to avoid long-term impacts.  Amongst other things, this means developing and implementing strategies for actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Carbon sequestration, like other forms of active global climate intervention, is a dicey long-term strategy.  It treats a symptom rather than a cause.  Yet we are going to have to triage the planet and mitigate some of the more severe symptoms of our presence, before we can begin working on long term solutions to owning the carbon cycle.

Approaches to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere range from planting more trees, to absorbing carbon dioxide in new materials, to accelerating parts of the carbon cycle such as carbon accumulation and subsequent sequestration in marine algae.  Some of the technologies being discussed are reasonably well established; others are still over the horizon.  Many of them rely on engineering materials at the atomic and molecular scale; another reason we need to invest intelligently in developing and using nanoscale technologies.

But there are also big questions here that go beyond the science and technology: What would it take to make carbon sequestration economically viable? What are the risks—the short and long term consequences?  And what are the social and political barriers that need to be addressed to make carbon sequestration effective?  The bottom line is that although the idea of carbon sequestration is attractive, we still don’t know whether it is viable.

Part of the issue is that the challenges of intervening in planetary-scale processes are immense.  We don’t have a good sense of the consequences of scaling up attempts to actively modify the atmosphere on a global scale.  We have no idea how to do a risk analysis on a one-shot planet-wide experiment.  And we are struggling to find solutions to social, economic and political issues that transcend normally rigid boundaries.

Nevertheless, speeding up the process of managing the impacts of carbon emissions is essential if we are to ultimately develop long-term sustainable solutions to managing the carbon cycle itself.

Looking to the future

I’ve tried to be a little provocative here – I don’t think we will ever fully “own” the carbon cycle.  But I do think we need a mindset-change, where we begin to think about taking an active role in planetary management, if we are to pave the way for a sustainable future.

This mindset change must embrace slowing down—learning how to work with cycles like the carbon cycle rather than against them.

But it must also enable some speeding up – the planet needs some rapid and drastic first aid if we are going to be around long enough to implement long-term strategies.

In both cases, we won’t get very far if we don’t invest more – far more – in supporting new science and developing new technologies, and understanding how to use these in an increasingly complex global social, economic and political environment.

The bad news is that we’re not very good at using new technologies to solve global problems.  The good news is that we are fast learners when we want to be.

The question is – are we smart enough to learn how to own the carbon cycle?  Or are we destined to remain passive observers as we face an increasingly precarious future?

Having just got back to the hotel at some unseemly hour (at least according to my body clock) from the first full day of meetings at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, I’m trying my best to be disciplined and write some of my impressions up.  As it’s late, I’ll be brief:

Scenery: Stunning (I’ll try for some photos later in the week).

Security: High.

Meeting: Steep learning curve to work out where everything is, never mind how to get to where I’m supposed to be

People: Surprisingly normal (apart from a tendency to spontaneously “network” – my theory is they have no idea whether who they are speaking to is someone important or a nobody, so they hedge their bets and go with the former.  Pity them when they encounter me!)

Celebs: Was too busy to to notice.  Okay so I did pass Bill Clinton in the corridor, almost had the chance to talk to Margaret Atwood, and shook Lang Lang’s hand.  But that’s all…

Sessions: Stimulating.  Interesting session with folks fro MIT on intelligence – a lot to assimilate there (must confess to being shocked at the idea of using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation – TMS – on kids.  Need to think more about this).  Sarkozy was riveting, whether you agree with him or not.  Dinner with Technology Review’s Jason Pontin was thought provoking and entertaining.  What was particularly interesting was that while the dinner was focused on technology breakthroughs, the discussion gravitated rapidly to talking about broader social, ethical and political issues.  I didn’t even have to prompt them!

And the mitts? Jason asked me to entertain to dinner and I took him literally, illustrating that the gloves are off when it comes to engineering matter at the atomic scale.   The point being that we now have far greater dexterity than ever before in how we engineer matter at the nanometer scale, and this is helping us to make things that work better.  Not too many people complained about the theatrics

More tomorrow, if I can stand the pace.

I‘m sitting here at Dulles Airport waiting for my flight to Zurich and the annual World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos, so I thought I’d dash off a quick blog.  If you’re on the ball, you will realize that by arriving tomorrow, I will be missing most of the first day of the meeting.  This is intentional – I’m doing Davos on a budget (which is why I am also flying on frequent flier miles – but more of that later in the week possibly.  In the meantime, I’m crossing my fingers that they don’t place me in the dreaded toilet seat!).

In preparation, I’ve spent the day pulling my talking points together.  I’m supposed to be speaking at four events, in addition to sampling the delights of the rest of the meeting.

To kick off, I’m talking about science and technology breakthroughs at a dinner hosted by Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief of Technology Review.  With my usual impeccable timing, this is in the evening of the day I arrive, so it’s touch and go whether I will actually be awake and coherent when speaking.  Always a sucker for cheap theatrics, this is where I will be using a just-purchased pair of faux sheepskin mittens for visual impact (at least that’s the intention, as long as I can get them on.  A last minute purchase, I had to settle for a rather narrow pair of woman’s mitts).

Thursday I’m talking emerging technologies and climate change management/mitigation with a bunch of industry leaders.  Again it’s a dinner event, so the chances of me eating a square meal that evening are slim.  The main aim here is to finish in time to hear James Cameron talking about Avatar later that evening.

Friday I’m pitching an idea for a new global center on emerging technologies intelligence, as part of the Davos IdeasLab series.  Should be interesting – I have five minutes to pitch the idea to a group of folk, against a backdrop of five text-less timed Powerpoint slides.  It’s a bit like a sudden death presentation…

Saturday I’m a free agent – unless someone finds out, in which case I could well find myself dragged into something at the last minute.

Sunday I join what looks like scores of presenters in a large brainstorming session on the “Global Agenda 2010″ – not sure what to expect here.

Then it’s party time, before heading back next Monday – again hoping that I avoid that seat especially reserved for frequent flier users and other undesirables.

That’s it for now.  See you on the other side of the Atlantic.

This week I’m heading out to the World Economic Forum jamboree in Davos, Switzerland.  I’d like to play this cool – as if rubbing shoulders with politicians, business leaders and celebs is something I do all the time.  But the reality is that this is my first time to what is probably the biggest annual gathering of world thought-leaders and decision-makers, and I’m just a little star-struck!

The World Economic Forum has been gathering world leaders together to address emerging challenges and opportunities in an informal and intimate setting for four decades now – this year’s Annual Meeting is the fortieth.  It’s a unique forum, where political and business leaders rub shoulders with academics, activists and celebrities as they get a handle on the major issues facing society around the world.  This is one of the few places where you run the chance of bumping into people like Bono, Bill Gates and Al Gore as you get your morning coffee.

Held in the Swiss Ski resort of Davos, a mix of formal, informal and private meetings brings a diverse group of people together to not only discuss the issues facing the world, but to craft workable solutions.  In the 2500 people at this year’s meeting, there will over 900 chief executives from a wide range of business sectors, government representatives from the world’s top 25 economies and fast-growing small countries (including heads of state and government), civil society leaders, academics, thought-leaders and media representatives.

Within this rather eclectic mix, I will be talking to people about emerging technologies, and their place in 21st century global society.  It’s an area that fits glove-in-hand with this year’s theme – “Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild” – but is often overlooked in the social, economic and policy debates.  There’s a tendency to simply assume that science and technology will come up with solutions to pressing problems – my job is to disabuse people of this fancy, and get some concerted action on how we are going to actively ensure science and technology help improve people’s lives without creating more problems than they solve.

Over the next few days, I’ll be blogging and tweeting from Davos (assuming I have any time in a schedule that starts early in the morning, and seems to extend to early the next morning).  Just to avoid disappointment, I won’t be dishing the dirt on off the record meetings – there are rules to respect here.  I will try and provide a sense of my experiences here though, and in particular how emerging technologies seem to be fitting in to the grand scheme of things.

But back to being just a little star-struck.  Glimpsing through the program (I’m still filling my dance card) I see that Lang Lang (the pianist) will be performing, Margaret Atwood will be talking about After the Flood and James Cameron will be discussing Avator – and that’s before I’ve even got to the serious socioeconomic stuff.

I wonder if any of them are interested in talking emerging tech over an espresso…

_______________________________________

As well as posting the occasional blog from Davos, I will be posting short comments on Twitter and the 2020 Science Facebook Page.  I also see that Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief and publisher of Technology Review – will be tweeting from the event (I’ll be talking with Jason and a few others on science and technology breakthroughs next Wednesday).

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/01/24/from-davos-with-love/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2010/01/18/no-small-matter-taster/ http://2020science.org/2010/01/18/no-small-matter-taster/#comments Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:28:38 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2826

To accompany the review just posted of Felice Frankel and George Whitesides’ book “No Small Matter: Science on the Nanoscale” the authors kindly allowed me to post this series of excerpts.  What I wanted to capture here was the synergy between the images and the prose – and how together they pull the reader in.

This is just a small taste (bad pun – sorry) of what the book offers.  If you enjoyed it and want to see more – I’m sure you know your way to a good bookstore by now.

As people seem to expect this these days, I should be clear that this is an independent review, using a copy of No Small Matter purchased from my own hard earned cash!

How do you write a book about something few people have heard off, and less seem interested in?  The answer, it seems, is to write about something else.

Felice Frankel and George Whitesides have clearly taken this lesson to heart. Judged by the cover alone, their new book “No Small Matter:  Science at the Nanoscale” is all about science in the Twilight zone of the nanoscale – where stuff doesn’t behave in the way intuition says it should.  Open the cover, and you are drawn into a seductive world of stunning images and poetic prose, that reveal as much about the authors’ passions and delights as the science that drives them. Finish the book, and you will have a far more sophisticated grasp of nanotechnology than most of your friends and, dare I say it, many of the people currently working in the field.  Because this is the sleight of hand that Frankel and Whitesides pull – by not writing about nanotechnology, they have published what is perhaps the best book on the subject to date!

But all this is besides the point.  Because more than anything, No Small Matter is about the delight of understanding and appreciating better the world in which we find ourselves.  This is a book that is simple enough for a child to appreciate, and subtle enough to keep the most cynical intellectual engaged.  It’s the sort of book I would strongly recommend you read (and read again) – not because I think you should, but because I think you’ll enjoy it.

The key to this remarkable book – and I choose my words carefully here – is the synergy between Frankel’s images and Whitesides prose (see these excerpts for an example).  Whitesides’ writing is poetic, engaging – it draws you in.  Even re-reading the book for this review, I find myself savoring the lines.  It’s not that Whitesides avoids long words and complex ideas – try this one for size for instance: “Anthropomorphizing capillarity into affection or avarice is misleading but unavoidably appealing.”  But he writes with an openness, enthusiasm and deceptive simplicity that pulls the reader in – you can almost see the glint in his eye as you read.  Take this passage for example from the book’s introduction:

“This book is about small things.  They’re different – sometimes really, and enthrallingly, different.  We humans have always been fascinated by “small”: the gears and springs of a fine watch, embroidery, a jumping spider – each is a distinct kind of marvel.  We think of ourselves as master artisans, and we have a connoisseur’s appreciation of delicate work.”

Rather than lecturing, Whitesides seeks to help you see the world through his eyes.

But the prose – beautiful as they are – are only part of the equation here.  The real genius of the book is the merging of Whitesides’ writing with Frankel’s images.  On their own, many of the images appear mundane (although the skill behind them is far from trivial).  Placed alongside Whitesides’ writing, something special happens.  The images draw out the full flavor of the prose, seasoning them to perfection.  Take this description of combustion:

“The smallest flames share features in common with the largest: a burning candle tells the story as well as a coal-fired electrical power plant; only details are different in a coal fire and a diesel engine.  Here, the heat from the flame melts the hydrocarbon candle wax; the liquid wax climbs up the wick; heat radiated from the flame vaporizes the wax; the vapor mixes with air; a complex series of chemical reactions in the hot region – the flame – convert wax and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water.  At an intermediate point in the flame zone, small particles of unburned carbon – at a temperature of approximately 1000 C – glow yellow.  When combustion is incomplete, unburned carbon particles cool to smoke or soot.”

The story is elegantly told.  But it is Frankel’s exquisite photograph of a candle flame beside it that connects the description to reality, and helps you appreciate the intricate science involved in an apparently simple process.

Another wonderful example comes in Whitesides’ discussion of wave-particle duality, which is dominated by his thoughts on math and poetry:

“We’re burdened by a curious conditioning that blinds us to one of the greatest—perhaps the greatest—of art forms. We live for poetry; we live in terror of equations.

We see a poem, and we try it on for size: we read a line or two; we roll it around in our mind; we see how it fits and tastes and sounds. We may not like it, and let it drop, but we enjoy the encounter and look forward to the next. We seen an equation, and it is as if we’d glimpsed a tarantula in the baby’s crib. We panic.

Equations are the poetry that we use to describe the behavior of electrons and atoms, just as we use poems to describe ourselves…

Poetry describes humanity with a human voice; equations describe a reality beyond the reach of words. Playing a fugue, and tasting fresh summer tomatoes, and writing poetry, and falling in love all ultimately dissolve into molecules and electrons, but we cannot yet (and perhaps, ever) trace the path from one end (from molecules) to the other (us). Not with poetry, not with equations. But each guides us part way.

Of course, not all equations are things of beauty: some are porcupines, some are plumber’s helpers, and some are tarantulas.”

And the accompanying image?  A photograph of Louis de Broglie’s wave equation – hand written.

But I don’t want to leave you with the impression that the images are merely an illumination for the text.  Some of them  capture perfectly the world of the nanoscale.  Others are cleverly crafted metaphors – a glass apple with a cubic shadow for instance; a metaphor for quantum objects that have attributes that seem irreconcilably at odds.

The heart of the book is sixty short essays, accompanied by images.  These are divided into seven sections, loosely covering “smallness;” strange behavior at the nanoscale; living things; why science at the nanoscale matters; dangers and challenges; and whether this is all the next big thing, or merely a storm in a teacup.  The essays are loosely linked, but each stands on its own.  Taken together, they seem at first to follow a random walk through Whitesides’ imagination – a comfortable mix of personal reflection and science on subjects that pique his curiosity.  But rather cleverly, they coalesce to provide a coherent sense of nanoscience.  And in doing so, provide what is perhaps the most honest and clear sense of nanotechnology that I have read.

The challenge here is that nanotechnology is not back and white – it’s not easy to say “this is nanotechnology; that is not.”  Other writers have tried to draw clear lines around the technology.  But in doing so, they have come perilously close to diminishing the wonder of seeing how the world works at the nanoscale, or the innovation that comes from using this knowledge.  Frankel and Whitesides on the other hand don’t draw boundaries – they are content with talking about stuff that is small, and different, and exciting, and awe inspiring.  They are happy working in gray areas that defy clear definition.  And they set out to enlighten, not instruct.

The result is a book that will delight anyone with an interest in the material world and an appreciation of poetic prose and eye catching images.

A series of image and text from the book can be seen here.

__________________________

As people seem to expect this these days, I should be clear that this is an independent review, using a copy of No Small Matter purchased from my own hard earned cash!

For more information on the book and the review, check out the 2020 Science Facebook page

Ten years ago at the close of the 20th century, people the world over were obsessing about the millennium bug – an unanticipated glitch arising from an earlier technology.  I wonder how clear it was then that, despite this storm in what turned out to be a rather small teacup, the following decade would see unprecedented advances in technology – the mapping of the human genome, social media, nanotechnology, space-tourism, face transplants, hybrid cars, global communications, digital storage, and more.  Looking back, it’s clear that despite a few hiccups, emerging technologies are on a roll – one that’s showing no sign of slowing down.

So what can we expect as we enter the second decade of the twenty first century?  What are the emerging technology trends that are going to be hitting the headlines over the next ten years?

Here’s my list of the top ten technologies I think are worth watching. I’m afraid that, as with all crystal ball gazing, it’s bound to be flawed. Yet as I work on the opportunities and challenges of emerging technologies, these do seem to be areas that are ripe for prime time.

Geoengineering

2009 was the year that geoengineering moved from the fringe to the mainstream.  The idea of engineering the climate on a global scale has been around for a while. But as the penny has dropped that we may be unable – or unwilling – to curb carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to manage global warming, geoengineering has risen up the political agenda.  My guess is that the next decade will see the debate over geoengineering intensify.  Research will lead to increasingly plausible and economically feasible ways to tinker with the environment.  At the same time, political and social pressure will grow – both to put plans into action (whether multi- or unilaterally), and to limit the use of geoengineering.  The big question is whether globally-coordinated efforts to develop and use the technology in a socially and politically responsible way emerge, or whether we end up with an ugly – and potentially disastrous – free for all.

Smart grids

It may not be that apparent to the average consumer, but the way that electricity is generated, stored and transmitted is under immense strain.  As demand for electrical power grows, a radical rethink of the power grid is needed if we are to get electricity to where it is needed, when it is needed.  And the solution most likely to emerge as the way forward over the next ten years is the Smart Grid.  Smart grids connect producers of electricity to users through an interconnected “intelligent” network.  They allow centralized power stations to be augmented with – and even replaced by – distributed sources such as small-scale wind farms and domestic solar panels.  They route power from where there is excess being generated to where there is excess demand.  And they allow individuals to become providers as well as consumers – feeding power into the grid from home-installed generators, while drawing from the grid when they can’t meet their own demands.  The result is a vastly more efficient, responsive and resilient way of generating and supplying electricity.  As energy demands and limits on greenhouse gas emissions hit conventional electricity grids over the next decade, expect to see smart grids get increasing attention.

Radical materials

Good as they are, most of the materials we use these days are flawed – they don’t work as well as they could.  And usually, the fault lies in how the materials are structured at the atomic and molecular scale.  The past decade has seen some amazing advances in our ability to engineer materials with increasing precision at this scale.  The result is radical materials – materials that far outperform conventional materials in their strength, lightness, conductivity, ability to transmit heat, and a whole host of other characteristics.  Many of these are still at the research stage.  But as demands for high performance materials continue to increase everywhere from medical devices to advanced microprocessors and safe, efficient cars to space flight, radical materials will become increasingly common.  In particular, watch out for products based on carbon nanotubes.  Commercial use of this unique material has had it’s fair share of challenges over the past decade.  But I’m anticipating many of these will be overcome over the next ten years, allowing the material to achieve at least some of it’s long-anticipated promise.

Synthetic biology

Ten years ago, few people had heard of the term “synthetic biology.”  Now, scientists are able to synthesize the genome of a new organism from scratch, and are on the brink of using it to create a living bacteria.  Synthetic biology is about taking control of DNA – the genetic code of life – and engineering it, much in the same way a computer programmer engineers digital code.  It’s arisen in part as the cost of reading and synthesizing DNA sequences has plummeted.  But it is also being driven by scientists and engineers  who believe that living systems can be engineered in the same way as other systems.  In many ways, synthetic biology represents the digitization of biology.  We can now “upload” genetic sequences into a computer, where they can be manipulated like any other digital data.  But we can also “download” them back into reality when we have finished playing with them – creating new genetic code to be inserted into existing – or entirely new – organisms.  This is still expensive, and not as simple as many people would like to believe – we’re really just scratching the surface of the rules that govern how genetic code works.  But as the cost of DNA sequencing and synthesis continues to fall, expect to see the field advance in huge leaps and bounds over the next decade.  I’m not that optimistic about us cracking how the genetic code works in great detail by 2020 – the more we learn at the moment, the more we realize we don’t know.  However, I have no doubt that what we do learn will be enough to ensure synthetic biology is a hot topic over the next decade.  In particular, look out for synthesis of the first artificial organism, the development and use of “BioBricks” – the biological equivalent of electronic components – and the rise of DIY-biotechnology.

Personal genomics

Closely related to the developments underpinning synthetic biology, personal genomics relies on rapid sequencing and interpretation of an individual’s genetic sequence.  The Human Genome Project – completed in 2001 – cost taxpayers around $2.7 billion dollars, and took 13 years to complete.  In 2007, James Watson’s genome was sequenced in 2 months, at a cost of $2 million.  In 2009, Complete Genomics were sequencing personal genomes at less than $5000 a shot.  $1000 personal genomes are now on the cards for the near future – with the possibility of substantially faster/cheaper services by the end of the decade.  What exactly people are going to do with all these data is anyone’s guess at this point – especially as we still have a long way to go before we can make sense of huge sections of the human genome.  Add to this the complication of epigenetics, where external factors lead to changes in how genetic information is decoded which can pass from generation to generation, and and it’s uncertain how far personal genomics will progress over the next decade.  What aren’t in doubt though are the personal, social and economic driving forces behind generating and using this information. These are likely to underpin a growing market for personal genetic information over the next decade – and a growing number of businesses looking to capitalize on the data.

Bio-interfaces

Blurring the boundaries between individuals and machines has long held our fascination. Whether it’s building human-machine hybrids, engineering high performance body parts or interfacing directly with computers, bio-interfaces are the stuff of our wildest dreams and worst nightmares.  Fortunately, we’re still a world away from some of the more extreme imaginings of science fiction – we won’t be constructing the prototype of Star Trek Voyager’s Seven of Nine anytime soon.  But the sophistication with which we can interface with the human body is fast reaching the point where rapid developments should be anticipated.  As a hint of things to come, check out the Luke Arm from Deka (founded by Dean Kamen).  Or Honda’s work on Brain Machine Interfaces.  Over the next decade, the convergence of technologies like Information Technology, nanoscale engineering, biotechnology and neurotechnology are likely to lead to highly sophisticated bio-interfaces.  Expect to see advances in sensors that plug into the brain, prosthetic limbs that are controlled from the brain, and even implants that directly interface with the brain.  My guess is that some of the more radical developments in bio-interfaces will probably occur after 2020.  But a lot of the groundwork will be laid over the next ten years.

Data interfaces

The amount of information available through the internet has exploded over the past decade.  Advances in data storage, transmission and processing have transformed the internet from a geek’s paradise to a supporting pillar of 21st century society.  But while the last ten years have been about access to information, I suspect that the next ten will be dominated by how to make sense of it all.  Without the means to find what we want in this vast sea of information, we are quite literally drowning in data.  And useful as search engines like Google are, they still struggle to separate the meaningful from the meaningless.  As a result, my sense is that over the next decade we will see some significant changes in how we interact with the internet.  We’re already seeing the beginnings of this in websites like Wolfram Alpha that “computes” answers to queries rather than simply returning search hits,  or Microsoft’s Bing, which helps take some of the guesswork out of searches.  Then we have ideas like The Sixth Sense project at the MIT Media Lab, which uses an interactive interface to tap into context-relevant web information.  As devices like phones, cameras, projectors, TV’s, computers, cars, shopping trolleys, you name it, become increasingly integrated and connected, be prepared to see rapid and radical changes in how we interface with and make sense of the web.

Solar power

Is the next decade going to be the one where solar power fulfills its promise?  Quite possibly.  Apart from increased political and social pressure to move towards sustainable energy sources, there are a couple of solar technologies that could well deliver over the next few years.  The first of these is printable solar cells.  They won’t be significantly more efficient than conventional solar cells.  But if the technology can be scaled up and some teething difficulties resolved, they could lead to the cost of solar power plummeting.  The technology is simple in concept – using relatively conventional printing processes and special inks, solar cells could be printed onto cheap, flexible substrates; roll to roll solar panels at a fraction of the cost of conventional silicon-based units.  And this opens the door to widespread use.  The second technology to watch is solar-assisted reactors.  Combining mirror-concentrated solar radiation with some nifty catalysts, it is becoming increasingly feasible to convert sunlight into other forms of energy at extremely high efficiencies.  Imagine being able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight and an appropriate catalyst for instance, then recombine them to reclaim the energy on-demand – all at minimal energy loss.  Both of these solar technologies are poised to make a big impact over the next decade.

Nootropics

Drugs that enhance mental ability – increasingly referred to as nootropics – are not new.  But their use patterns are.  Drugs like ritalin, donepezil and modafinil are increasingly being used by students, academics and others to give them a mental edge.  What is startling though is a general sense that this is acceptable practice.  Back in June I ran a straw poll on 2020 Science to gauge attitudes to using nootropics.  Out of 207 respondents, 153 people (74%) either used nootropics, or would consider using them on a regular or occasional basis.  In April 2009, an article in the New Yorker reported on the growing use of “neuroenhancing drugs” to enhance performance. And in an informal poll run by Nature in April 2008, 1 in 5 respondents claimed “they had used drugs for non-medical reasons to stimulate their focus, concentration or memory.” Unlike physical performance-enhancing drugs, it seems that the social rules for nootropics are different.  There are even some who suggest that it is perhaps unethical not to take them – that operating to the best of our mental ability is a personal social obligation.  Of course this leads to a potentially explosive social/technological mix, that won’t be diffused easily.  Over the next ten years, I expect the issue of nootropics will become huge.  There will be questions on whether people should be free to take these drugs, whether the social advantages outweigh the personal advantages, and whether they confer an unfair advantage to users by leading to higher grades, better jobs, more money.  But there’s also the issue of drugs development.  If a strong market for nootropics emerges, there is every chance that new, more effective drugs will follow.  Then the question arises – who gets the “good” stuff, and who suffers as a result?  Whichever way you look at it, the 2010′s are set to be an interesting decade for mind-enhancing substances.

Cosmeceuticals

Cosmetics and pharmaceuticals inhabit very different worlds at the moment.  Pharmaceuticals typically treat or prevent disease, while cosmetics simply make you look better.  But why keep the two separate?  Why not develop products that make you look good by working with your body, rather than simply covering it?  The answer is largely due to regulation – drugs have to be put through a far more stringent set of checks and balances that cosmetics before entering the market, and rightly so.  But beyond this, there is enormous commercial potential in combining the two, especially as new science is paving the way for externally applied substances to do more than just beautify.  Products that blur the line are already available – in the US for instance, sunscreens and anti dandruff shampoos are considered drugs.  And the cosmetics industry regularly use the term “cosmeceutical” to describe products with medicinal or drug-like properties.  Yet with advances in synthetic chemistry and nanoscale engineering, it’s becoming increasingly possible to develop products that do more than just lead to “cosmetic” changes.  Imagine products that make you look younger, fresher, more beautiful, by changing your body rather than just covering up flaws and imperfections.  It’s a cosmetics company’s dream – one shared by many of their customers I suspect.  The dam that’s preventing many such products at the moment is regulation.  But if the pressure becomes too great – and there’s a fair chance it will over the next ten years – this dam is likely to burst.  And when it does, cosmeceuticals are going to hit the scene big-time.

So those are my ten emerging technology trends to watch over the next decade.  But what happened to nanotechnology, and what other technologies were on my shortlist?

Nanotech has been a dominant emerging technology over the past ten years.  But in many ways, it’s a fake.  Advances in the science of understanding and manipulating matter at the nanoscale are indisputable, as are the early technology outcomes of this science.  But nanotechnology is really just a convenient shorthand for a whole raft of emerging technologies that span semiconductors to sunscreens, and often share nothing more than an engineered structure that is somewhere between 1 – 100 nanometers in scale.  So rather than focus on nanotech, I decided to look at specific technologies which I think will make a significant impact over the next decade.  Perhaps not surprisingly though, many of them depend in some way on working with matter at nanometer scales.

In terms of the emerging technologies shortlist, it was tough to whittle this down to ten trends. My initial list included batteries, decentralized computing, biofuels, stem cells, cloning, artificial intelligence, robotics, low earth orbit flights, clean tech, neuroscience and memristors – there are many others that no doubt could and should have been on it.  Some of these I felt were likely to reach their prime sometime after the next decade.  Others I felt didn’t have as much potential to shake things up and make headlines as the ones I chose.  But this was a highly subjective and personal process.  I’m sure if someone else were writing this, the top ten list would be different.

And one final word.  Many of the technologies I’ve highlighted reflect an overarching trend: convergence.  Although not a technology in itself, synergistic convergence between different areas of knowledge and expertise will likely dominate emerging technology trends over the next decade.  Which means that confident as I am in my predictions, the chances of something completely different, unusual and amazing happening are…  pretty high!

Update, 12/27/09  Something’s been bugging me, and I’ve just realized what it is – in my original list of ten, I had smart drugs, but in the editing process they somehow got left by the wayside!  As I don’t want to go back and change the ten emerging technology trends I ended up posting, they will have to be a bonus.  As it is, drug delivery timelines are so long that I’m not sure how many smart drugs will hit the market before 2020.  But when they do, they will surely mark a turning point in therapeutics.  These are drugs that are programmed to behave in various ways.  The simplest are designed to accumulate around disease sites, then destroy the disease on command – gold shell nanoparticles fit the bill here, preferentially accumulating around tumors then destroying them by heating up when irradiated with infrared radiation.  More sophisticated smart drugs are in the pipeline though that are designed to seek out diseased cells, provide local diagnostics, then release therapeutic agents on demand.  The result is targeted disease treatment that leads to significantly greater efficacy at substantially lower doses.  Whether or not these make a significant impact over the next decade, they are definitely a technology to watch.

Update 12/29/09  Which emerging technologies do you thing will trend over the next decade?  Join the discussion on the 2020 Science Facebook page.

By Jim Thomas, ETC Group

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

For a fresh perspective on how to do technology governance consider starting somewhere else. I suggest York Castle in Northern England – a stark stone tower from the thirteenth century.

It was here in 1812 that the English state first executed fifteen men for the newly established crime of machine-breaking. They were Luddites – the original kind: artisan weavers who saw the factory system as an assault on their livelihoods and communities. At the time England was convulsed by the ‘machine question’ – with fiery debates in parliament and hundreds of fiery attacks on cloth mills by followers of the mythical Ned Ludd. As the first industrial revolution gathered steam, literally, the political class made a deliberate decision to side with the new industrialists. 12,000 Soldiers were deployed to quell the Luddite uprising – more than were abroad fighting Napoleon. The Frame Breaking Act made Luddism punishable by death and in time the word Luddite itself was transformed into a term of contempt and abuse that lasted all the way to 21^st century science debates. Its fair to say the Luddites lost – big time.

I should admit right now that I’m a big fan of the Luddites – Not that its much fun supporting an extinct political movement. Unlike sports teams there’s neither merchandise to buy nor Facebook groups to join (not unless you count this: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ye-Luddites/121981285761?v=info ). But I like Ned Ludd and his gang for two reasons.

Firstly I think they were right in ways they didn’t even know at the time. Our contemporary crises of climate change, overproduction and industrial pollution trace back in obvious ways to the industrial revolution as do the emergence of  urban and labour problems that flowed from the factory system and the urbanization that it gave rise to. The new cloth factories made possible a level of demand that justified establishing cotton plantations and a vicious slave trade setting in motion cycles of violence and racism that still persist today. Did the industrial revolution also bring benefits to society – of course it did although those benefits remain very unevenly distributed. Did the Luddites know they were fighting the roots of future racism. No – but their instincts were good.

Secondly I admire the Luddites for their success (albeit brief) in creating  a large-scale truly popular debate about emerging technologies. The widespread uprising of 1811-16 was more than just a wave of hysterics. Popular geek culture casts a ‘Luddite’ as a technologically inept dunce, fearful of change. Historical accounts reveal nothing of the sort. Real Luddites were adept users of complex hand weaving looms. They often espoused nuanced views on the technological revolution happening around them. They were not uniformly anti-technology: Their grievances, as recorded in song and declarations , were specifically with technologies that were “harmful to the common good” – as good a standard as any against which to asses technological appropriateness.  In their night time raids they would break some mechanical frames that they considered unjust while leaving others untouched that they considered benign. They recognised technological power as political, entwined with monopoly power and responsible for a lowering of standards and production of shoddy goods. They even practiced a radical form of democratic  technology assessment that we haven’t seen the like of since: dragging bulky mechanical looms to the market place to hold public trials in which all the community could pass judgement on the new machines – a public consultation process of the most inclusive kind.

I was once involved in organizing such a Luddite-style technology trial – at York Castle no less. A group of fellow activists dragged a motor car to the old stone tower and we set up public court, inviting bystanders to testify for or against the impact of the internal combustion engine on all our lives. Road kill, asthma, community destruction and climate change were weighed against the increased mobility and economic opportunities provided by four fast wheels. Everyone who happened to pass by became the jury.  On balance the car was found guilty of being ‘harmful to the common good’ but received a lighter sentence than the Luddites had on the same spot. This symbolic exercise in popular assessment of technology was exactly 100 years too late to influence the relevant innovation policy. Nonetheless it set me thinking: What if we weren’t too late? What if we could drag emerging technologies into a modern court of public deliberation and democratic oversight. What might that look like?

I’ve been turning over that question for about 15 years now while active in global debates on emerging technologies –  particularly GM Crops, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  Geo-engineering – Debates in which I’ve encountered the term Luddite, meant as a slur, more times than I care to count. Language like this tumbles carelessly out of history .. but I find the parallels striking. Once again we are in the early phases of a new industrial revolution. Once again powerful technologies (Converging Technologies ) are physically remaking and sometimes disintegrating our societies. Those  of us in civil society carrying out bit-part campaigns, issuing press releases and launching legal challenges are in a sense attempting to drag technology governance away from the darkness of narrow expert committees and into the sunny court of public deliberation for a broader hearing.. It seems a perfectly reasonable and democratic urge. But there’s got to be a better and more systematic way to do that?

So far I’ve found three sets of proposals that might begin to put technology oversight into the open and back in the hands of a wider public:

• Public Engagement: Citizens Juries, Knowledge exchanges, People’s Commissions.

No don’t yawn. I grant you that science policy types (and the rest of us) have every reason to groan when they hear the term “Public engagement in Science”. Like other  empty buzz phrases (“sustainable development” and “corporate social responsibility” come to mind) its too easily appropriated – but there is still (just about) some value in imagining and practicing what actual involvement mechanisms we could craft to enable a more democratic form of innovation governance.  Citizen’s Juries in places as diverse as Andra Pradesh, Mali and Brazil have enabled marginalized groups such as farmers to at least take a place alongside seed companies and biotech giants in policy processes. While People’s Commissions (investigation processes run by citizens groups) may get short shrift from a condescending political establishment yet can often exhibit excellent foresight, drawing on sources of grassroots knowledge  that closetted self-referential science committees might never open up to. These days my faith in public engagement  is waning having watched several governments employ such processes as a thinly disguised public relations ploy or to tie up the energies of civil society. Unless a public engagement process has a clear promise by those in power that they will listen, respond and demonstrably act on reccomendations its likely to lose the interest of the participants too.

• Global Oversight: ICENT.

ICENT stands for the International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies – a UN level body for foresighting emerging technology trends and then applying a wide-ranging assessment process that will consider the social, environmental and justice implications of the innovation being scrutinised. It doesn’t exist yet and maybe it never will but at ETC Group we have dedicated a lot of time to imagining what such a body could look like (we even have some nifty organagrams – see pg 36-40 of this) For example there would be bodies scanning the technological horizon and others making a rough reckoning of whether a new technology needed a strong oversight framework or not. Others tasked with bringing in a broad range of knowledge (what do the indigenous folks say?) or identifying exactly the right place in the system of global governance to begin regulatory moves. At a time when tech governance is several decades late each time we find a new platform emerging (Nanotech? Synthetic Biology? Geoengineering?) An ICENT–like body could maybe get international machinery in gear a bit quicker – ideally before industrial interests have already written those technologies into next quarter’s earning sheets and are shipping them to market.

• Popular assessment : Technopedia?

The only governance and regulations that work are those where somebody is paying attention – so  rather than hide technology assessment in rarefied committees why not hand it to the wisdom of the crowds. Wikipedia may not be the most perfectly accurate source of all knowledge but it is comprehensive, up to date and flexible and provides an interesting model. Actually Wikipedia entries are often not a bad place to start if you want to suss out the societal and environmental issues raised by the zeitgeist regarding new technologies. How about a dedicated wiki site for collaborative monitoring and judging of emerging technologies? Such a site could be structured so that, unlike the halls of power, marginal voices have a space and are welcome. A grassroots army of  volunteer technology assessors could help fill out the questions that Brussels or Washington never asks: What is the feminist take on this technology? How does it impact indigenous or disabled groups? What livelihood issues does this raise for the poor? Will the global commodities trade be affected? Perhaps an extended social media approach to technology assessment could convene online juries, host global conference calls and draft peoples reports for input into policy deliberations.

Don’t get me wrong.. approaches like these are not panaceas .. Adopt them all and some of us in civil society  might still feel there are a few metaphorical mechanical frames that would still need breaking. For example I’m not sure a modern day Ned Ludd would be content to spend his whole time writing wiki entries.

Then again, at least he might participate in his own facebook group…

______________________________

Jim Thomas is a Research Programme Manager and Writer with the ETC Group based in Montreal, Canada. His background is in communications, writing on emerging technologies and international campaigning.

Formerly an organiser with grassroots direct action movements in Europe and North America, Jim spent seven years with  Greenpeace International as a campaigner on food and genetic  engineering issues before joining ETC Group in 2002. Jim organised the  first international meeting on the societal impacts of Nanotechnology (held in the European Parliament), speaks around the world on  emerging technology issues and has authored several reports, chapters and press  articles on Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  GeoEngineering.  He writes a regular ‘Tech Reckoning’ column for The Ecologist Magazine exploring the  politics of next generation technologies.

Trained as a historian to look back at the history of technology, Jim is now proccupied with the future of technology. Once upon a time he was an award winning slam poet but then he had children…

ETC Group have a blog too…

By George Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment, and the Center for Food Safety

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

Andrew asked us to write about “how technological innovation should contribute to life in the 21^st century.”  Technological innovation is often blindly referred to as “progress.”  The question is — progress towards what?

We live in the age of technology.  In past generations, most people spent the majority of their time in nature, and then in later years more often in social settings.  In the modern world, most of us spend an ever-increasing amount of time in an interconnected web of machines.  I’d like to say I’m writing this on a riverside, but unfortunately I’m not – I’m in my office typing on my laptop, with my email open on a different web browser.

What currently drives this technological innovation, this technological bubble that defines our age?  In modern society, self-interest, greater productivity, greater consumption, the laws of supply and demand and the commoditization of the world are all drivers.  This economic system, which has now succeeded in global hegemony, dictates all our social interactions. Far from being a natural state of being, it is of course only as old as the United States (Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was published in 1776) and not based on any natural law. In early societies, the market system was never the method by which basic societal problems were addressed; rather the marketplace was delegated only a limited role by our ancestors compared to their cultural and religious beliefs and social patterns.  Nature (not to mention labor), although treated as such, is not a commodity. Nature does not respond to supply and demand. The old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest will not speed up their growth rate to address increased demand.  More fundamentally, the natural world has intrinsic, incalculable value above and far beyond “market values”.  Even the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) recognizes this truth, in that it prohibits the extermination of species no matter how lucrative the activity  that is causing the killing.

Not only are the current dominant economic systems and their intertwined technological systems at odds with the ecological cycles of the natural world, but they are also actively and quickly eviscerating the planet.  We are exponentially reducing the earth’s capacities in every natural realm: land, air, water, and everything in between, through ozone depletion, acid rain, species extinction, deforestation, and desertification.  By commodifying nature to match our own systems we are threatening the planets’ survival and our own.  Global warming illustrates this conclusion best: Our industrial technologies have created the first global environmental crisis in human history.

We now face what is known as the technological dilemma—the “developed” portion of the world’s population has become dependent on the technological environment. Yet the same technologies that support life for the richest part of human population are threatening the very viability of life on Earth.  Even former President George W. Bush said we are “addicted to oil.”  And this addiction to these unhealthy systems of production is destroying our world.  To paraphrase and apply the wisdom of Rowlf the Dog from the Muppets to market-based mass consumerism: we can’t live with our technologies, and we can’t imagine living without them.

These are not new revelations.  And there are really only two options.  Forty years ago, writers and leaders began urging that we institute “appropriate technologies” in sync with the cycles of nature, rather than the mega-global-techno-systems causing planetary and human peril.  Attorneys and policymakers have succeeded in passing and utilizing laws that would limit the impacts of capital and industrial systems, like the ESA.  Scientists began to develop more holistic visions of their vocations.  This approach/option is a step toward addressing economic development within the context of rather than at the expense of our global environment and the society which depends upon it.

But others too have come to the conclusion that our current technology is not compatible with life.  They have foreseen the growing conflict between globalization, mass consumption, and the laws of nature.  However, their solution to the dilemma is very different.  Rather than change our economics and technology to better comport with the needs of living things, corporations and governments began to engineer life itself to better accommodate the market system and the technologies upon which it is predicated.  Ignoring the constraints of the natural world, living systems are to be remade, engineered at the genetic and molecular level to further the necessities of the technological age.

What’s the result of this worldview?  You probably see where this is going.  Genetic engineering, or recombinant DNA technology, is seen as the tool by which we can alter life at the genetic level to better fit industrial production systems and become a technological commodity.  Cloning is seen as the tool by which we can emulate the factory model of identical production for life forms.  Rather than redesigning industrial agriculture to fit the animal’s natural behavior, we are redesigning the animal to fit industrial agriculture.  Because patent control spurred production for products, we must now patent plants, animals, and human genes and cells.  Nanotechnology is a means by which we can control and manipulate matter at the atomic and molecular level to enhance industrial processes.  Lastly, synthetic biology is a means by which we combine several of these tools to create and design entirely new life forms to perform our industrial tasks. Even Dr. Frankenstein was cautious enough to not make his creature a mate; “synthetic biologists,” on the other hand, want their creatures to reproduce before systems are in place to control them.

Got environmental problems? Global warming does not to be addressed by stopping harmful greenhouse gas emissions and putting in place strictures to address systemic problems; instead, we should geo-engineer the planet to ameliorate the problem, or genetically engineer plants to be more drought- tolerant or trees to grow faster.  Chemical pollution causing environmental and health hazards? We do not need to reduce our use of harmful pesticides; instead, we should engineer production plants to be immune to them.  Pigs and chickens not amenable to horrific close-confinement factory farming?  Don’t encourage organic and humane farming and change the systems by making industrial agriculture internalize the true costs of its production; instead,  genetically alter the animals to withstand extreme confinement and diseases that proliferate therein.  Wild salmon runs dying out?  Don’t remove the dams and stop the pollution, farm them and genetically re-engineer them to grow faster in crowded, polluted ponds.

So where does that leave us?  Well, first, we must recognize and address the underlying philosophy and economy that drives and controls technological innovation. An order of magnitude in change is required; we must institute a paradigm-shift to a system of governance and life that is based on coexistence with and benefit to natural systems: An earth-centered system.  As Thomas Berry explains in The Dream of Earth, we must move from the technological age to the ecological age.  We must begin treating ourselves and the natural world as part of an interconnected web; stop thinking in straight lines and start thinking in circles.  “Progress” must include the natural as well as the human world, encouraging mutually enhancing human-earth relationships.  Human technologies should function in an integral relationship with earth technologies, not in a despotic manner.  Nature, over hundreds of millions of years and through an infinite number of experiments, worked out ecosystems that were already flourishing abundantly when we came to exist.  How can technological innovation help us determine how we can best be present in this context?  Modern society must treat life and the natural world as the spiritual force it is.  There must be a mystique of rivers if we are ever going to restore the purity of our rivers.  This is not a new idea, it is actually the oldest.  Is this an idealized vision? Perhaps, but it’s a considerably less naive world vision that that which claims we can sustain our current industrial system.

Can technological innovation help us get there?  If it changes the course current path we’re going down, if it helps stop the bleeding.  If it breaks away from being driven by corporate profits, and instead helps spread knowledge, wisdom, and awareness.  If it helps us flesh out and establish an earth-centered system to replace the current oppressive paradigm.  We must evolve our technological systems so that they are democratic and responsive to us, that we are responsible for them, and so that they comport with nature and with life forms on the earth.  We can dust off the old ways and make them the new again, making them more seductive and more logical than our current destructive ways. Only with these changes will technological innovation properly serve the planet and enhance, as well as extend, a meaningful human experience.

___________________

George A. Kimbrell is a staff attorney for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety (CFS) and its parent organization International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), based in San Francisco, California.  He practices environmental and administrative law with a focus on legal and policy issues related to new and emerging technologies.  For ICTA, he works on matters involving nanotechnology, biotechnology and climate change technologies.  For CFS, he covers genetically engineered food and crops, organic standards, factory farming and aquaculture.

Mr. Kimbrell received his J.D. magna cum laude from Lewis and Clark Law School and has a B.A. from the College of William and Mary.  Prior to joining ICTA and CFS, he completed a clerkship on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I do not here officially represent my organizations or clients.  The views discussed herein owe much to the ideas and writings of others.  For more detailed discussion of many of these issues, please see, inter alia, Andrew Kimbrell, Salmon Economics (and other lessons), Twenty-Third Annual E.F. Schumacher Lectures, Stockbridge, Mass. (Oct 2003).

By Richard Worthington, Loka Institute

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

My first scholarly engagement with environmental politics was an honor’s thesis written while I was an undergraduate at Berkeley in the early 1970s.  Back then, the term “environmentalist” was frequently deployed to profile someone held to be a naïve, irresponsible and possibly dangerous enemy of the American Way of Life.

The simple fact, however, is that concerns about environmental decay and support for environmental improvement have been consistently voiced by most Americans since the 1970s.  The strategy of branding environmentalists as extremists was therefore eroded by the enduring reality that most people who are active in this arena were and are ordinary folks who are confronted by extraordinary problems.

Seeing that they could not beat environmental sentiments, by the 1990s many industry leaders decided to embrace them.  Their opponents quickly invented terms such as  “greenwash” in order to frame industry’s new environmentalism as a cynical ploy, but in terms of actual outcomes, the polluters clearly won.  More than moving toward ecological balance, the Clinton-Gore years were notable for privatization, deregulation, and revving up industrial growth and consumption.  This despite the publication of Al Gore’s eloquent and even radical Earth in the Balance only a few months before his election as Vice-President. The Bush years only amplified the familiar refrain of growth and conquest (of nature and other countries).

The problem for growth-first  advocates is that ecological disruption and its consequences won’t go away.  Material circumstances thus continue to drive broad-based environmental concern, while the most powerful interests in global society have only begun to talk about action to address the imbalance between the technosphere and the ecosphere.  I write this in Copenhagen, where the largest environmental convention in history is attempting to grapple with the real prospect that the quality of life everywhere is imperiled by a human-induced alteration of the climate.  Practically no one here is questioning the legitimacy of climate concerns, and just about everyone is hailing a new green economy, yet expectations of significant progress toward this goal are low.

What’s nanotechnology got to do with this?  As it turns out, nanotech is central in a discourse where a third framing of “environment” and “ecology” has evolved.  In this version, the system of science-driven innovation that is now at the center of global economic growth strategies is itself considered an ecosystem, even though plants, animals (other than humans) and the other elements normally associated with the term “ecology” are nowhere to be found.

I first encountered this move to conflate new technology and ecology during the 1980s in the works of conservative political economist George Gilder.  Gilder was enthralled with digital information technology, which he credited with delivering “a billion Asians” from penury (in “Telecosm:  The Bandwidth Revolution”, Forbes ASAP, 1994, p. 117).   Perhaps more noteworthy was Gilder’s rhetorical move to describe the digital world in ecological terms.

“More ecosystem than machine, cyberspace is a bioelectronic environment that is literally universal:  It exists everywhere there are telephone wires, coaxial cables, fiber-optic lines or electromagnetic waves.  This environment is ‘inhabited’ by knowledge…existing in electronic form” (Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age, 1994, prepared for the Progress and Freedom Foundation).

Nano has now replaced digital in this genre.  Here’s how no less a figure than Mihail C. Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology to the United States National Science Foundation, describes the system for governing nanotechnology:

“IRGC (International Risk Governance Council) views the stakeholder groups involved [in nanogovernance] as operating within a dynamic ecosystem of interlocking dependencies.  The task is therefore to create an adaptive, collaborative environment enabling different parties to play their part in the ecosystem” (ISO Focus, “Guest View“, April 2007, p.6).

Here, a distinctively human artifice is represented as a natural system.

The narrative of ecology and society that now includes nanotech thus goes like this:  at the dawn of the contemporary environmental movement, industry leaders equated environmentalism with extremism in an attempt to undermine its legitimacy.  After this tactic had run its course, they proclaimed their own environmental concern in order to obfuscate a largely unchanged agenda of industrial growth at all costs.  Now, the system of technology-driven economic growth that currently has nanotechnology as its poster child is depicted to actually be an ecosystem.

People and nature, of course, are inextricably interdependent, so there is a sound basis for including human society in a concept of ecology.  But if the distinction between non-human nature and the product of human endeavors is erased from the idea of ecology, our ability to distinguish a manufactured human society from one in which people and nature exist in a dynamic balance will be undermined.  Should it come to pass, this scenario could well make us wish for the good old days when “environmentalist” was an epithet.

___________________________

Rick Worthington is involved in nanotechnology issues by way of volunteer collaborations at  the Loka Institute, whose mission is “Making research, science and technology responsive to democratically-decided social and environmental concerns” (for a summary of and links to Loka’s involvement in nanotech, visit http://www.loka.org/FedNanoPolicy.html).  He is also Professor of Politics and chairs the Program in Public Policy Analysis at Pomona College in Claremont, California.

Rick has written extensively on science, technology and the environment (including in a book, Rethinking Globalization:  Production, Politics, Actions, Peter Lang Publishing, 2000), and currently is U.S. Coordinator of World Wide Views on Global Warming.  WWViews is the first-ever global citizen policy consultation, held September 26, 2009.  In it, nearly 4,000 citizens in 38 countries studied and debated the issues now on the table in Copenhagen (December 7 – 18, 2009) at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (www.wwviews.org).

By Geoff Tansey

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

Andrew posed the question, “How should technology innovation contribute to life in the 21^st century?”

For me, working on creating a well-fed world, the short answer is: in a way that supports a diverse, fair and sustainable food system in which everyone, everywhere can eat a healthy safe, culturally appropriate diet. For that to happen, we need a change of direction in which the key innovations needed are social, economic and political, not technological. And the question is:  what kind of technology, developed by whom, for whom, will help; who has what power to decide on what to do and to control it, who carries the risks and gets the benefits.

Take the debate on GM technology, for example. We in the Food Ethics Council, building on a recent magazine (volume 3 issue 3 of Food Ethics Magazine), and five previous reports (Getting personal 2005, Just knowledge 2004, Engineering nutrition 2003, Trips with everything 2002, Novel foods 1999), are actively involved in reframing the debate. We argue that instead of asking, ‘how can GM technology help secure global food supplies’, we need to ask ‘what can be done – by scientists but also by others – to help the world’s hungry?’

When I stared the journal Food Policy in the mid 1970s we were worried about how to prevent the recurrence of the food crisis of the early 1970s and feed a population expected to increase by 50% by 2000. Sound familiar? In fact today, although more people are fed now than then, there are more hungry people now, 1.02 billion and far more overweight and obese people, 1.3bn as well as up to 2 billion people with micronutrient deficiencies. What we have developed in the rich world is a dysfunctional food system.

Technological innovation will not solve the problems of hunger and malnutrition in the future – just as it has not in the past – because they are not technical problems. But the kind of technological innovation we have will affect our ability to maintain a healthy food system – and for that we need major change, as the recent International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) pointed out – business as usual is not an option. In effect, we have made a massive mistake in taking the intensive fossil-fuel led approach to agricultural development and we need to take a more agro-ecological approach which needs just as smart, but different science and technology. A science that seeks to understand and work with complexity, and works with farmers to do so within an ecological framework, rather than a reductionist science that focuses narrowly on specific attributes and disciplines and is based on an economic framework totally inadequate for the task. Moreover, the direction of R&D (research and development) is being seriously distorted by the extension of rules on patents and other forms of monopoly or exclusionary privileges [misnamed intellectual property (IP) rights] into life forms and farming – which has been the quintessential disseminated open system of innovation, supported for most of the 20^th century by public good R&D.

Moreover, those firms that stand to benefit from an innovation system that privileges them through the way the IP system has developed, do not face the countervailing labelling, liability and redress requirements, and anti-trust measures, that would temper the speed with which they wish to apply their inventions in the market, seek first mover opportunities for increasing profitability and to use IP as a means to achieve and maintain market dominance. Instead, we are being led toward a model of R&D in food and farming similar to that of the marketing-based pharmaceutical industry, which fails to deliver for the diseases of poor people or which only a few suffer from.

In reality, the extension of IP rules globally through the inclusion of global minimum IP standards into the World Trade Organisation through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement was a conservative and protectionist response by a set of industries to real technological revolutions* that means their business model is defunct and should be replaced, as discussed by Schumpeter (see for instance here).

Remember, too, that you do not have to have a correct scientific understanding of something to develop technologies that work, but sometimes we need a revolution in the history of science to conceive of new ways of engineering things – from Einstein’s insight that matter could be converted to energy, and Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA and our understanding that life – and information – is digital and can be manipulated and re-engineered as such. That leads to new technological possibilities, as does nano-tech and synthetic biology – but all new technologies are generally over-hyped and invariably have unintended consequences. Indeed, global warming is the unintended consequence of a fossil- fuel driven industrial revolution.

One of the means we’ve developed in the FEC to help think about these issues is an ethical matrix. This draws on various philosophical traditions we tend to use when thinking about what to do in terms of how it affects different groups’ wellbeing, autonomy and the justice or fairness of what is planned. It provides a means of examining the ethical positions of all interest groups – ensuring equality of treatment (justice/fairness). A very simple example is below.

An example of an ethical framework for addressing issues around food

________________________

*See The Future Control of Food: A Guide to International Negotiations and Rules on Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Food Security, Edited by Geoff Tansey and Tasmin Rajotte, available from Earthscan and also now freely available online in HTML and XML formats on IDRC’s website.

Geoff Tansey has worked on food, agriculture and development issues since the mid-1970s, after graduating with a BSc in Soil Science (1972) and MSc in History and Social Studies of Science (1975). In 1975, he helped found and edit the journal Food Policy, later worked on various agricultural development projects in Turkey, Mongolia, Albania and Kazakstan and was lead author of The Food System – a guide.

He has been a freelance writer, consultant, and occasional broadcaster, since the early 1980s. He has contributed features to many newspapers and magazines, various journals and books as well as written and edited a range of books.

Since the late 1990s, Geoff has worked on the impact of changing global rules on patents and other forms of intellectual property, on food, biodiversity, health and development. This has included consultancy with the UK Department for International Development, the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission and the Quaker International Affairs Programme (QIAP), Ottawa and Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in Geneva.

His voluntary work includes membership of the Food Ethics Council since 2000, chairing the Food Policy Committee of the Guild of Food Writers, April 2000-April 2002, and The Food Network (formerly the Northern Food Network) from 1995 – 2000. He was co-convenor of the Conflict and Security Study Group of the Development Studies Association, 1990 – 98 and Honorary Campaigns Consultant, World Development Movement, 1989 – 94.

By Georgia Miller, Friends of the Earth Australia

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

The promise that a given new technology will deliver environmentally benign electricity too cheap to meter, end hunger and poverty, or cure disease is very seductive. That is why the claims are made with many emerging technologies – nuclear power, biotechnology and nanotechnology, to name a few.

However history shows that such optimistic predictions are never achieved in reality. In addition to benefits, new technologies come with social, economic and environmental costs, and sometimes significant political implications.

Still, when it comes to public communication or policy making about nanotechnology, we’re often presented with the limited notion of weighing up predicted ‘benefits’ versus ‘risks’ (e.g. see here, here or here).

This framing ignores the broader costs and transformative potential of new technologies. It suggests that if we can only make nanotechnology ‘safe’, its development will necessarily deliver wealth, health, social opportunities and even environmental gains.

Ensuring technology safety is clearly very important. But simply assuming that ‘safe’ technology will deliver nothing but benefits, and that these benefits will be available to everyone, is – to put it mildly – quite optimistic.

To evaluate whether or not new technologies will help or hinder efforts to address the great ecological and social challenges of our time, we need to dig a little deeper.

The first generation of nano-products on the market attests to the primacy of the profit motive in guiding nanotechnology development, rather than a quest for environmental or social utility. A quick look at the Wilson Center’s Consumer Products Inventory reveals wrinkle-disguising cosmetics, meal-replacement diet milkshakes, stain-repellent ties and high performance golf clubs.

The huge proportion of the United States government’s nanotechnology research and development budget devoted to military applications – nearly a quarter in the 2010 budget – is also as concerning as it is revealing.

But let’s just agree to take a brief flight of fancy and imagine that governments, with public funding, did want to prioritise development of environmentally and socially useful technologies.

A brief survey of the challenges confronting our 21^st century world highlights why such a decision may be warranted.

We are reaching, if not exceeding, our planet’s ecological limits. Climate change is not the only problem – water shortages, loss of arable land, pollution, deforestation, desertification and mass species extinction all point to a looming ecological crisis.

We also face an often unacknowledged justice crisis. Last year’s unprecedented global food shortages, where food riots occurred in many countries, was a stark reminder than hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest citizens struggle to meet their most basic daily needs.

How do we have a mature conversation about the role of technologies in 21^st century innovation when we’re literally at make-or-break time ecologically, and the majority world is demanding an end to gross inequity?

First of all, we’d have to go beyond a superficial tally of ‘benefits’ versus ‘risks’ of new technologies, to ask some more thoughtful and critical questions. These include questions about whether technology – and what sort of technology – could help extract us from the mess we’re in, and whether technology – and what sort of technology – will dig us further in. They would also evaluate the extent to which a technology’s actual (rather than ideal) applications will help or hinder, and the extent to which helpful applications will be accessible to those who need them. Importantly, we’d also ask how decision making about technology could be opened up to those affected – wider publics.

We would have to recognise that some of the problems we face have social or economic causes to which technological fixes are not suited. In some instances greater technical capacity – or greater accessibility of a capacity that exists elsewhere – could certainly make a useful contribution. But in other instances the adoption of new technologies could have a damaging effect.

The last forty years was a period of significant technological innovation in which microelectronics, information technologies, medical treatments, telecommunications and biotechnologies were developed, and mass air travel expanded dramatically. Technologies transformed economies, political structures and daily life for both better and worse.

In this time of rapid technological development, there were winners, losers and a new scale of environmental cost. The per capita ecological footprint of many high income countries grew. The gap between the global rich and the global poor widened.

This is not to imply that technological innovation has been the only factor driving increasing resource use and widening inequities – clearly it hasn’t; a range of social, economic and political factors are relevant. But equally clearly, rapid technological innovation has not been the answer to our global problems.

Our experience demonstrates that technological innovation will not in itself enable us to live within our means – no amount of technology delivered efficiency will enable endless economic growth on a finite planet. Nor will technology reduce the inequities that divide rich and poor – this requires social, economic and political change.

Our experience also teaches us that environmentally or socially promising technologies will not necessarily be adopted, especially if they challenge the status quo. The government of Australia, one of the sunniest countries on earth, has pledged billions of dollars to cushion the coal industry from the effects of a proposed carbon trading system, while offering scant support to the fledgling solar energy sector.

There is a tendency to focus on the potential of new technologies to address our most pressing problems, rather than to seek better deployment of existing technologies, better design of existing systems, or changes in production and consumption. This reflects a preference to avoid systemic change. It also reflects an unfounded optimism that the ‘solution’ lies just over the horizon.

But sometimes ensuring better deployment of existing technologies is the most effective way to deal with a problem. Just as wider accessibility of existing drugs and medical treatments could prevent a huge number of deaths world-wide, improving urban storm water harvesting and re-use, housing insulation and mass transit public transport could go a long way to reducing our ecological footprint – potentially at a lower cost and at lower risk than mooted high tech options.

If evaluating the implementation or performance failures of previous technologies reveals economic or social obstacles or constraints, it’s probably these factors that warrant our attention. There is no reason to believe they will magically disappear once new technologies arrive.

Technological choices have a key part to play in achieving urgently needed environmental and social change. Making the best choices that we can has never been so important. This requires us to look beyond safety to ask bigger questions about new technologies. We must ask what is required to achieve our most critical social and environmental objectives, and be willing to accept that new technology is not always the answer. We must also ask what is required to ensure that those most affected by the outcomes of technology decision making have a voice in that decision making process.

________________________

Georgia Miller coordinates Friends of the Earth Australia’s Nanotechnology Project. Friends of the Earth is an environment and social justice NGO which has national member groups in 77 countries. Georgia is particularly interested in supporting greater public involvement in science policy development and decision making, and in making technology more responsive to social and environmental needs.

More information about FoEA’s work on nanotechnology can be found at: http://nano.foe.org.au

By Gregor Wolbring

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

First let me thank Andrew for inviting me to write a piece for his blog. Andrew states that his blog is about “how technology innovation should contribute to living in the 21st century” and about “providing a clear perspective on developing science and technology responsible”. I will focus on two aspects here. Under ‘Innovation for whom’ I look at disabled people and their visibility in the science and technology (S&T) and problem identification discourses. Under ‘innovation for what’ I look at the issue of goals and ableism.

Innovation for whom?

S&T have huge positive potential, however bringing the positive potential to fruition depends on the right social environment and foresight to identify societal and other problems, and the willingness to address them.

How do disabled people fare in a) influencing the S&T discourse and b) highlighting their problems? Science and technologies have an impact on disabled people in at least four main ways. S&T may develop tools to adapt the environment in which disabled people live and give disabled people tools that would allow them to deal with environmental challenges. This side of S&T would make the life of disabled people more livable without changing the identity and biological reality of the disabled person. S&T may develop tools that would diagnose the part of disabled people’s biological reality seen by others as deficient, defect and impaired thus allowing for preventative measures. S&T may develop tools that would eliminate that portion of disabled people’s biological reality seen by others as deficient, defect, impaired. And S&T may influence and be influenced discourses, concepts, trends and areas of action that all also impact disabled persons. However disabled people seem to be invisible in most S&T governance and priority setting discourses (e.g. see Wolbring (2007) Nano-Engagement: Some critical issues Journal of Health and Development (India) Vol. 3 No 1-2, pp. 9-29). It is in particular striking that especially disabled people who do not perceive themselves as defective are mostly absent from the nano governance and priority setting discourses. Disabled people are also not part of the geoengineering or the synthetic biology discourse. And the list can be extended. This invisibility does not only exist for disabled people but extends to many other marginalized groups.

Disabled people are also highly impacted by contemporary problems such as climate change and disaster adaptation and mitigation, access to water and sanitation, access to food, and energy and so forth and are invisible in the discourses around contemporary problems.

I highlighted for example in the 2009 paper A culture of neglect: Climate discourse and disabled people that

1. it is believed that climate change will disproportionally and differently impact disabled people;
2. the record of disaster adaptation and mitigation efforts towards disabled people is less than stellar;
3. despite the fact that other social groups such as women, children, ‘the poor’, indigenous people, farmers and displaced people are mentioned in climate related reports such as the IPCC reports and the Human Development Report 2007/2008 Fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world, disabled people are not mentioned in these reports although they are uniquely impacted by the problems covered and
4. the adaptation and mitigation knowledge  existing among disabled people is not mainstreamed.

I highlighted in my nano water column that the first world water report ignored the different needs and insights disabled people have with respect to water and sanitation. The third edition of the world water report published in 2009 again ignored disabled people’s needs and insights with regard to water despite mentioning other marginalized groups such as indigenous peoples, women in developing countries, the rural poor and their children.  A memorandum for a World Water Protocol (MWWP) was recently generated. It also omits the mentioning of people with disabilities. It states “Place particular emphasis on the participation, especially those groups of citizens that are under privileged, notably, women, young people and workers/peasants.”

It seems the right social environment and foresight to identify societal and other problems does not exist in regards to disabled people and many other marginalized groups.

Innovation for what?

The Converging Technologies for the European Knowledge Society (CTEK) report (PDF) states “Converging technologies are enabling technologies and knowledge systems that enable each other in the pursuit of a common goal.” If goals are the drivers what drives the generation of goals, the favouritism for certain goals? Is there a common goal?

Ableism is one concept that shapes goals people put forward and is often a goal in itself. Ableism is at the root or a major contributing factor of many societal dynamics in history, today, and very likely the future. Science and technology research and development and governance and different forms of ableism have always been and will continue to be inter-related. The desire and expectations for certain abilities led and will continue to lead to the support of science and technology research and development that promises the fulfilment of these desires and expectations. Science and technology research and development led and will continue to lead to products that enable new abilities and expectations and desires for new forms of abilities making possible new forms of ableism.

So what is it?

One form of ableism favors normative species-typical body abilities and perceives non normative ‘sub’ species-typical body abilities as a state of lesser being and is criticized by disability studies scholars for a while.  However ableism is much more ubiquitous (for online articles see here and here). “This form of ableism is a main contributor to a social dynamic that leaves disabled people invisible in many discourses and only heard in certain discourses. It promotes a “we”, “other” dynamic whereby the “we” are the  species-typical and the  “other” are the ‘sub species-typical’. In its general form, it’s a set of beliefs, processes and practices that produce a particular kind of understanding of oneself, one’s body and one’s relationship with others of one’s species, other species and one’s environment. Ableism is based on a favouritisms for certain abilities that are projected as essential by certain individuals, households, communities, groups, sectors, regions, countries and cultures which at the same time label real or perceived deviation from, or lack of these essential abilities, as a diminished state of being. Ableism exists in many forms such as biological structure based ableism, cognition based ableism, ableism inherent to a given economic system, and social structure based ableism. The favouritism of abilities contributes to other isms such as racism, sexism, cast-ism, ageism speciesism, and anti-environmentalism. Furthermore certain issues are a reflection of the desire for certain abilities such as GDP-ism, consumerism and competitiveness-ism.

If one reads the Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information technology, and Cognitive science Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (NBIC) report it mentions productivity over 60 times and the term efficiency 54 times and the term competitiveness 29 times. The CTEK report states “Europe may value global competitiveness and economic growth above all else or may seek to balance it against values of social and environmental justice.”

The jury is still out which abilities we try to support with science and technology advances. We have to choose which abilities we cherish and which ableism we exhibit. I submit that the fields of Ability and Ableism ethics, studies, foresight and governance are essential lenses for responsible S&T advancement.

____________________

Gregor Wolbring is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health Science, Program in Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies. He is Affiliated Scholar, Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University, USA; Part Time Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Canada and Adjunct Faculty Critical Disability Studies York University, Canada. He is among others President elect of the Canadian Disability Studies Association and Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People’s International.

For further information, see:

Ableism and Ability Ethics and Governance blog: http://ableism.wordpress.com

The Choice is Yours column: http://www.innovationwatch.com/commentary_choiceisyours.htm

Nano Bio Info Cogno Synbio Blog: http://wolbring.wordpress.com/

What Sorts of People blog: http://whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com/

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/12/14/wolbring/feed/ 8 http://2020science.org/2009/12/14/darnovsky/ http://2020science.org/2009/12/14/darnovsky/#comments Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:00:31 +0000 Guest http://2020science.org/?p=2545

By Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Associate Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

Much appreciation is due to Andrew for his courage in soliciting “alternative perspectives” on technology innovation and life in the 21st century.  I can’t help but observe that his nervousness about doing so is one small sign that something is amiss in what he calls “the interface between emerging technologies and society.”

One challenge we face in mending that interface is a tendency toward over-enthusiasm about prospective technologies. Another is the entanglement of technology innovation and commercial dynamics. Neither of these is brand new.

Back in the last century, the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair took “technological innovation” as its theme and “A Century of Progress” as its formal name. Its official motto was “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms.”

The slogan shamelessly depicts “science” and “industry” as dictator – or at least drill sergeant – of humanity. It anoints industrial science as a rightful decision-maker about human ends, and an inevitable purveyor of societal uplift.

Today the 1933 World’s Fair slogan seems altogether crass. But have we earned our cringe? We’d like to think that we’re more realistic about science and technology innovations. We want to believe that, in some collective sense, we’re in control of their broad direction. But are we less giddy about the techno-future now than we were back then?  Does technology innovation now serve human needs rather than the imperatives of commerce? Have we devised social and cultural innovations for shaping new technologies – do we have robust democratic mechanisms that encourage citizens and communities to participate meaningfully in decisions about their development, use and regulation?

I’m afraid that the habits of exaggerating the benefits of new technologies and minimizing their unwanted down sides are with us still. And in my view there’s huge room for improvement in our capacity for democratic governance of technology innovation.

Part of the problem is a lag in acknowledging how technology innovation now typically unfolds. Popular perceptions of scientific and technological development still feature white-coated researchers toiling late into the night for the benefit of humanity (or demented Dr. Frankensteins heedlessly pursing their own grand ambitions). To whatever extent these images may have once been realistic, they are now downright misleading. Technology innovation is increasingly dominated by large-scale commercial imperatives. Over the past century, and ever more so since the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act (an attempt to spur innovation by allowing publicly funded researchers to profit from their work), innovators have become scientist-entrepreneurs, and universities something akin to corporate incubators.

Commercial dynamics have become particularly influential in the biosciences. It’s hard to imagine any scientist today responding as Jonas Salk did in 1955, when he said with a straight face that “the people” own the polio vaccine. “There is no patent,” he told legendary news broadcaster Edward R. Murrow. “Could you patent the sun?”

Of course, entrepreneurial activity in technology and science often delivers important benefits. It can bring new discoveries and techniques to fruition quickly, and make them available rapidly. Some recent commercial technologies, most notably in digital communication and computing, are stunning indeed.

But how far have we come from the slogan of the 1933 World’s Fair? Technology developers still routinely present their plans either as “inevitable” or as crucial for economic growth. As for the rest of us, we have few opportunities to deliberate – especially as citizens, but also as consumers – about the risks as well as the benefits of technology innovations. Twenty-first century societies and communities too often wind up conforming to new technologies rather than finding ways to shape their goals and direction.

In considering the future of human reproductive, genetic and related technologies (this is the major focus of my organization, the Center for Genetics and Society), the prospect of conforming to the imperatives of science and industry carries a chillingly literal implication. Scattered but persistent voices advocate that we “design” or “engineer” the traits of our children and of future generations. Some enthusiasts acknowledge that this would likely exacerbate social inequality; they recognize the very real possibility of a GATTACA-like future peopled with genetic haves and have-nots. But they remain gung-ho. Others fail to challenge such visions on the shaky libertarian grounds that an individual’s choice to alter the human species should trump commitments to social justice and human rights.

Fortunately, these are minority views.  Inheritable genetic modification is opposed by large majorities in opinion surveys, and has been formally rejected in the laws of nearly 50 countries. Unfortunately, there is no such policy in the U.S. Nor does the U.S. meaningfully regulate assisted reproductive technologies as other industrial democracies do.

What’s needed now is a new kind of biopolitical thinking. Toward that end, here are five principles that I believe should inform deliberation about innovation in human biotechnologies (and other major technologies as well):

• First, let’s acknowledge that the practices and products of science are inherently political [PDF]. They affect us collectively, shaping our communities and the larger world we share. That inescapable fact makes it legitimate—in fact obligatory—to subject powerful new technologies, including human biotech and related emerging technologies, to social negotiation and, when appropriate, to responsible control.

• Second, we need systematic, inclusive, and robust public conversations about the consequences of technology innovations and the values they support or undermine. This is especially challenging for reproductive and genetic technologies because of Americans’ strongly divergent views about beginning-of-life matters. If we can establish habits of thoughtful deliberation about these technologies, we’d have taken a big step forward.

• Third, the known and potential social consequences of technology innovations – not just their safety and efficacy – should be systematically included in our evaluations. We should particularly assess their impacts on socially and economically vulnerable populations.

• Fourth, we should draw on the lessons of previous efforts by socially concerned scientists and their supporters—the “atomic scientists,” environmentalists, public health advocates, and others—to safeguard human health and the environment, bolster responsible science, and build a more just society. We should be skeptical of technological fixes for social problems, and of innovations that serve elite groups rather than the public interest and the common good.

• Fifth, we should acknowledge that market mechanisms are not a substitute for public policy, and affirm the legitimacy and urgency of democratic oversight of major technology innovations, including human biotechnologies. As we would in other arenas, we should avoid regulatory capture, eliminate conflicts of interest, and maximize transparency, accountability, and wide participation in policy making.

The good news is that a new approach to biopolitics is taking shape, one that supports technology innovation when it serves human needs and socially defined goals, and when its broad directions are shaped by democratic governance. A growing network of civil society leaders, public intellectuals, and scientists is taking on the challenge. Contact CGS for more information.

__________________________

Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, is Associate Executive Director at the Center for Genetics and Society, a Berkeley, California-based public affairs organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of reproductive and genetic biotechnologies.

More information:

Center for Genetics and Society www.geneticsandsociety.org

Biopolitical Times www.biopoliticaltimes.org

More about the guidelines for 21^st-century biopolitics:

“Political Science: Progressives can’t—and shouldn’t—remove politics and values from science,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Summer 2009 http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6700

2020 Science is something of a labor of love – it’s a website where I explore my thoughts and ideas surrounding the interface between science, technology and society beyond the constraints of my “day job” (currently Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center).  I like to think I bring a balanced and, on a good day, sophisticated perspective to the stuff I write about.  So I was intrigued and just a little taken aback when Jim Thomas at ETC Group, recently pointed out that, actually, I’m quite obviously flying the flag for the established pro-technology innovation camp.

Jim was right – up to a point.  I do adhere to the “ideology” that if we are to survive the future, we need to get a lot smarter in how we develop and use technology.  But I also hope that I’m aware enough to recognize that there are other very different, but equally legitimate, perspectives on the role of technology innovation in society.  So this got me thinking – maybe I should invite a group of people with a range of different perspectives on tech innovation to write a series of guest blogs on the subject.  I’d find it useful.  But more importantly, I think people reading this blog would find it useful.

After speaking to a few friends within the Civil Society community (including NGOs like ETC Group, NRDC and Friends of the Earth), the idea took shape:  I would dedicate a week’s worth of blog space to ten different thought-leaders, asking each of them to address a single question:

“How should technology innovation contribute to life in the 21^st century?”

With no editorial control from me (bar framing the question), and a few simple guidelines on length and style, my hope was that this would provide something of a unique perspective on the role of technology innovation in society – including its potential downsides – and demonstrate that the future depends on responding to and working with many value systems, not just the apparently prevalent ones.

I should in all honesty point out that the thought of handing over the blog to a bunch of NGOs for the week scared the life out of me.  As it turns out, the process has been overwhelmingly positive.  Not only did these writers from a range of organizations graciously agree to write for the blog – they produced articles that without exception inform, challenge and enlighten.

The series starts next Monday (Dec 14) and ends on Dec 18.  Each day, I will be posting two guest blogs from the series; one in the morning, one in the afternoon.  The complete lineup can be found here.

Do look out for them and read them – they all well worth the time.  I don’t expect everyone will agree with everything that’s written – that’s OK.  But do me a favor – if you don’t agree (or even if you do, or have additional points you would like to make or questions you would like to ask), please do add comments to the blogs – that’s what the “Leave a Comment” box is there for!

With that, all that remains is for me to thank my ten guest bloggers – who without exception the gave of their time and energy with great generosity, and far exceeded my expectations.  Thank you.

__________________________

The ten guest bloggers are:

Marcy Darnovsky, Center for Genetics & Society

Gregor Wolbring, University of Calgary

Georgia Miller, Friends of the Earth

Geoff Tansey, Food Ethics Council

Jen Sass, Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC)

Richard Owen, University of Westminster

Richard Worthington, Loka

George Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA)

Tim Jackson, University of Surrey

Jim Thomas, ETC Group

See the full series details at “Technology innovation, life, and the 21st century – ten alternative perspectives“

Update, 12/15/09 – Richard Owen was added as a late substitution for Debra Harry

The final part of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

Nine months ago, I embarked on an ambitious project to flesh out the ideas presented in a seminar given at the James Martin 21st Century School at the University of Oxford.  The seminar was titled ““Rethinking science and technology innovation: A Personal Perspective.”  In it, I spoke about three factors that are coming together to change the landscape in which science and technology are developed and used for social good (coupling, communication and control), and how science and technology policy might respond to the new challenges that are arising as a consequence.

Rather naively, I thought this would occupy me for a few weeks.  The fact that I gave the original seminar in March, and I’m typing this in December, is a rather damning testament to my own lack of foresight!

Finally though, I have come to the end of the series.  I’m not sure how useful it has been or whether it will stand the test of time – there are certainly a lot of words within the eleven blogs associated with it, but whether they coalesce into new and worthwhile ideas is another matter entirely.  However, it has   helped me explore more thoroughly some of the concepts that drove the original seminar, and further develop my thoughts on science and technology might play in the 21st century.

The complete blog series can be accessed from here.  It addresses the critical roles science and technology will increasingly play in society over the coming decades; the challenges of getting science and technology-based strategies and policies right; and thoughts on how to respond to these challenges – leading to a future where science and technology are used for good, rather than leading to harm.

I’m not going to attempt to summarize the series here – a pretty succinct precis of the challenges and opportunities we face can be found in this post if you are interested.  Rather, I wanted to round the series off by ruminating more broadly and speculatively on the future challenges and opportunities we face.

First though, something of a confession: I’m a believer in science and technology.  I use the “B” word advisedly – I’m not sure I could prove unequivocally that science and technology innovation lead to people and communities being happier, more fulfilled, or having a greater “quality of life.”  But as a scientist, I can see how science and technology provide the means to alleviate suffering, improve health and well-being, and help define who we are.  I also see a society that is built on a foundation of science and technology and that is unavoidably and irreversibly dependent on them.  And as I gaze into my (admittedly murky) crystal ball, I find it hard to conceive of a future where science and technology are not essential to maintaining and improving people’s lives around the world.

But herein lies a challenge – if we are dependent on science and technology, how do we ensure that this dependency works for us, rather than against us?  We’ve spent the past several millennia grappling with this question, not always successfully.  But in the past, the rates of science discovery and technology advance have typically taken place over timescales that have allowed us to adapt (eventually) to the changes they bring about.

Entering the 21st century, all this is changing.  Science and technology are now progressing so fast that we are struggling to adapt to one set of breakthroughs before the next comes along – and the rate at “progress” is being made is accelerating.  Intertwined with this are the three factors of coupling, communication and control that are leading to challenges and opportunities never before experienced in human history.

From where I’m standing, it’s hard to imagine how we can ride the coming wave without a radical rethink of how we develop and use science and technology within society.    Certainly, it seems hopelessly naive to assume that how we’ve done things in the past will serve us well in the future.  Rather, we’ve got to grow up as a global society – and grow up fast – if we are to ensure science and technology improve our lives and those of future generations, rather than causing more problems than they solve.

In this series of articles, I’ve sketched out my own thoughts on where the challenges are, and where some of the solutions might lie.  They are rough, ill-formed and sometimes naive – this is very much a work in progress.  Yet hopefully they provide some kernels of value as we begin to face address challenges that are very much unique to our generation.

Having said this, I must end on a note of caution.  I am a science and technology optimist, but a cautious one.  I genuinely believe that science and technology – if developed and used appropriately – are critical to addressing the challenges of living and thriving in an increasingly complex and resource-constrained world.  But that’s my belief; it’s not a universal truth. At the end of the day, if we are to mature as a global society, we’re going to need to listen to other perspectives that maybe don’t see the world in the same way, and take full account of them as we rethink science and technology for the 21st century.

And rather conveniently, that’s the focus of the next blog series on 2020 Science.

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/12/09/science-and-technology-innovation-looking-to-the-future/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2009/12/07/completing-the-circle-coupling-science-technology-outputs-to-inputs/ http://2020science.org/2009/12/07/completing-the-circle-coupling-science-technology-outputs-to-inputs/#comments Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:45:57 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2525

Part 9 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

Writing about completing the circle of science and technology policy at the start of the Copenhagen climate summit seems particularly fitting.  Although the climate change context was far from my mind when I started this series, it stands as a stark reminder of the consequences of unconstrained science and technology, the possibilities of using science and technology to create a better future, and the daunting complexities of crafting policies that get us as a society to where we want to be.

Whether it’s dealing with climate change or innumerable other issues, the way we develop and use science and technology needs to be responsive to the challenges we face as a society, and the social, political and economic environment within which we face them.  Simply funding scientists to do what takes their fancy isn’t likely to deliver the goods in a world increasingly dominated by the three C’s – Communication, Control and Coupling.  Yet heavy-handed control of the science agenda is clearly not the answer—autonomy and open-ended research are essential to scientific discovery and innovation.

So what’s the answer?  How do we ensure our investment in science and technology as a society achieves what we believe it should, without over-indulging a science elite, or stifling discovery and innovation?  At the end of the last blog in this series I suggested that we need increased feedback in the policy process to make it work better.

Feedback loops take some of the output of a process and feed it back into the input – they’re a way of regulating a process so that it remains responsive, and doesn’t get out of control.  Of course, the business of policy is full of feedback loops.  In fact the whole political process can be seen as one rather large feedback loop – unpopular leaders and decisions usually end up being overturned, although sometimes the “time constants” are rather long.  The next two weeks in Copenhagen is a prime example of feedback in policy-making – even if this is a feedback loop with a rather large time constant.

However just because feedback mechanisms exist doesn’t mean that they are as effective as they could be…

In part 8 of this series, I proposed two feedback loops in particular that will become increasingly important to developing more responsive science and technology policy: Review and Participation.

The Review loop should be reasonably clear: It deals with comparing the actual impact of policy decisions with the intended impact, and adjusting the inputs to realign the outcomes.  This might mean altering the original goals, increasing (or even decreasing) the resources made available for specific areas, or changing the mechanisms by which those resources are used (for example).  It seems obvious, but it isn’t often done that well in practice.  There’s a fine line between too little and too much feedback, or feedback that’s fast but ill-informed and feedback that’s comprehensive but interminable!  Yet if we don’t get this balance right, it will be near-impossible to craft policies that respond to the ever-accelerating opportunities and challenges presented by 21^st century science and technology.

The Participation loop on the other hand may not be quite so clear.  This arises in to a large degree from one of the three “C’s” – communication – but is also driven by the other two – control and coupling.

Old-style “command and control” approaches to policy haven’t a hope of working in tomorrow’s hyper-connected world.  Through rapid and radical advances in global communication, people have become an inextricable part of the decision-making process – as a society, we now have a louder voice than ever before.  Policy makers can either fight this, or embrace it.

Integrating the participation of individuals and groups with a stake in science and technology into the policy process is a pragmatic necessity.  These are the people who will be affected by the outcomes of decisions made by governments, and who will become increasingly vocal – and influential – if they don’t like those decisions.  They are also a potential force for positive change – by listening to the “consumers” of science and technology, it becomes possible to craft policies which address their actual wants and needs, rather than making assumptions on their behalf.

There is also an ethical dimension here – to what extent is it appropriate for an elite handful of decision-makers to decide what is good for the masses?  Certainly, where highly complex information needs to be understood, interpreted and acted on, expert input is needed.  But broader decisions on the relevance and implications of science and technology should arguably involve the people (and organizations) who stand to benefit or suffer as a result of them.

So what are the keys and consequences to developing (or further developing) these two feedback loops?

When I gave the original lecture on which these notes are based, I identified three action-areas that will both help establish the loops, and ensure their effectiveness: empowerment, engagement and evaluation.

Empowering stakeholders

Neither of these two feedback loops will work if people and organizations are not empowered to become effective stakeholders.  This goes for expert stakeholders as well as lay stakeholders (which in most cases is people like you and me).  However, the challenges to empowering each group are different.

Lay stakeholders need to be provided with the ability to deal with the complexities of modern science and technology – and not to be intimidated by them.  Critical thinking is essential here – people need to be enabled to make sense of information, and separate out what is more important from what is less significant.  Information also needs to be accessible – in its original form (predominantly as peer reviewed publications), in non-expert syntheses, and in appropriate media coverage (and I’m including blogs here).  And importantly, the consequences of science and technology-related decisions need to be conveyed to non-expert stakeholders.  Even though many people struggle to understand the principles behind modern science and technology, most can grasp what it means to them personally if it is explained well.

Expert stakeholders on the other hand need to learn to communicate effectively, if they are to play their part in these feedback loops.  And critically, they need to learn to listen – to understand what the questions are, before providing answers.

Engaging stakeholders

This is a huge subject, worthy of several blog sites on its own (many of which already exist), and there is no way I can do it justice in a few sentences.  Yet looking at stakeholder engagement from the perspective of the two feedback loops being discussed, four points are worth highlighting:

First is the need for public discourse.  Without this, how will people know what is going on in science and technology, how it will affect them, and how they can play a part in shaping their future?  This leads directly into participation in decision-making.  Public engagement is not about communication, education or persuasion – it is about making people an integral part of the policy process – providing them with a seat at the table, where they will be listened to and taken seriously.

Effective public discourse and engagement will only be possible though if science is more completely integrated into society.  Rather than being seen as someone else’s problem, science in the 21^st century needs to be seen as everyone’s “problem.”  This will need some cultural changes if progress is to be made, from addressing educators who can’t see the point of science, to tackling politicians and public figures that undermine it, to dealing with scientists who strive to maintain their self-allotted place at the top of the intellectual pyramid.  But without changing the culture that determines science’s place within society, it will remain the realm of the elite.  And in a world increasingly dependent on science and technology, this can only lead to a Technocracy – in spirit, if not in name.

One possible approach to increasing the level of science and technology engagement is to build science and technology constituencies – groups of people with a vested interest in seeing science and technology developed and used effectively in specific areas.  The idea comes from medical research, where highly vocal involvement from non-expert stakeholders can have a huge influence on research investment, direction and application.

This approach is fraught with difficulties – the possibilities for ill-informed decisions are rife when poorly informed groups lobby for narrow areas of research to take a specific course.  But putting that aside, it’s intriguing to ask what would happen if communities were energized to be a part of research initiatives into areas like clean energy, water access, transport, food production?  What if passive lay “stakeholders” were given the opportunity to be active stakeholders, who could see a direct return on their investment in supporting and being a part of research initiatives that meant something to them?

Science and technology constituencies are a potentially dangerous idea – they take power away from the established elite for a start.  But it’s an intriguing concept nevertheless, and one that should probably be explored further.

(Re)Evaluating drivers, mechanisms and policies.

Finally, what’s the relevance of these feedback loops to people in a position to review and influence policy decisions?

In my original lecture, I highlighted three areas that policy makers and research funders should be focusing on: challenge-informed science, new knowledge stimulation, and knowledge-coupling.

Challenge-informed science. This is a bit of a hot potato.  The question of how you strike a balance between so-called blue skies research and applied research has vexed the science community for years, and at times has become extremely heated.  But rather than argue for one or the other, I would reframe the question and ask “how can we best develop science and technology policies that are socially relevant?”

Science for its own sake is essential – as I explain below.  But policy makers are accountable for how they spend a limited pot of public money.  For instance, if a country or region is facing challenges that will impact severely on peoples’ lives and livelihoods, and that could be alleviated through strategic investment in science and technology, it is hard for policy makers to argue for the bulk of science funding to go towards research that is irrelevant, which may serendipitously lead to some solutions to some future challenges, or which will lead to relevant knowledge but too late to be of any use.

Of course, the counter-argument is that it is naïve to assume that science and technology can be coerced into providing rapid solutions to challenges.  I would agree with this.  Yet at the same time, it is entirely possible for science and technology to be framed and guided—informed—by challenges (and opportunities) that society is facing now, or is likely to face in the future.  This doesn’t preclude blue skies research – but it does increase the chances of science and technology leading to socially relevant solutions.

And it should never be forgotten that practicing science is not an inalienable right – scientists (and technologists and engineers) and ultimately accountable to their patrons – who in this day and age tend to be their fellow citizens.

New Knowledge stimulation. So where does that leave blue skies research?  I would argue that there is always a justification for supporting open ended, exploratory research for three reasons:  It enriches society through raising our awareness of who we are and the universe we live in; it leads to serendipitous discovery; and it lays a foundation on which more applied research and technology innovation can be built.  It is essential to the science enterprise.  The only question is where the balance between open ended and ends-justified research should be.

I would argue that blue skies research should not dominate science and technology, except where there is a strong and specific argument for it to do so (the mega-expensive Large Hadron Collider comes to mind, where progress can only be made with substantial investment and little promise of practical return).  I would also suggest that it should be led by the most able researchers—those most capable of pushing the boundaries of knowledge.  And it should still be held accountable – even if this means communicating the more metaphysical and philosophical impacts of the work.  Blue skies research should never be a free ticket for researchers to do what they want at someone else’s expense.

Knowledge coupling. “Interdisciplinary research” is a buzz phrase that has been around for decades – often as a means of winning grants, which are then used for anything but true interdisciplinary research.  Yet it’s hard to deny that some of the more significant advances in science and technology occur at the intersections between different areas of expertise.  And it’s not only when researchers work between different scientific disciplines that innovation occurs – collaborations between scientists and engineers, social scientists, experts in the humanities and others are proving to be equally profitable.

What we are seeing is the effect of “knowledge coupling” – ensuring knowledge can flow between different fields of expertise with ease, leading to new ideas, new avenues of research and, ultimately, new advances in science and technology.  This seems to be a more useful concept than “interdisciplinary research” as it captures the essence of how knowledge and information lead to discovery, innovation and progress.  The more we can remove barriers to this cross-disciplinary, cross-expertise and cross-sector flow of knowledge, the better we will be at both stimulating new science, and using it effectively.

Pulling it all together

Developing and using science and technology effectively in the 21^st century will not be easy.  Increasingly, we’re facing “wicked problems” – problems that many stakeholders are interested in, but which remain elusive and ill-defined.  Science and technology are leading to some of these problems, but they also hold the keys to solving them – but only if we learn to use them wisely and effectively.  Integral to this process is getting the policy framework right, so that informed and effective decisions can be made.  And this in turn will depend on how the outcomes of the science and technology enterprise are fed back into the inputs – leading to policies that are responsive and effective.

As scientists, leaders, decision-makers, lobbyists and others gather in Copenhagen over the next two weeks, it will be an interesting test of how effectively science and technology policy are serving society, and how far we still have to go if we are to rise to the emerging challenges of the 21^st century.  Will we see the “nasty brutish debate with science caught somewhere in the middle” predicted by Tim Harper, or will a more mature and enlightened approach emerge?

I suspect Tim is right on this one, but hopefully he isn’t – because more than ever before we need to get science and technology right if we are to deal with the opportunities and challenges that Coupling, Communication and Control are going to throw our way over the coming decades.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.

Previously: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Next: Science and Technology Innovation – looking to the future

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/12/07/completing-the-circle-coupling-science-technology-outputs-to-inputs/feed/ 0 http://2020science.org/2009/11/22/whats-emerging-technology-got-to-do-with-it/ http://2020science.org/2009/11/22/whats-emerging-technology-got-to-do-with-it/#comments Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:00:31 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2437

As this weekend’s Summit on the Global Agenda came to a close this morning, I was left with an abiding impression of a looming yet largely hidden potential crisis in global security and prosperity: A failure to develop and use technology innovation effectively in serving the growing needs of society.

The summit set out to address a multitude of challenges to “improving the state of the world” (as the World Economic Forum tagline goes), and identified many innovative solutions to overcoming them.  Yet in many cases there was a disconnect between the ideas and their effective implementation…

Where the translation of an idea into practice depended on social or policy innovation, there were often clear thoughts on how to move forward.  But an integrated discussion on the role of technology innovation in enabling solutions to global challenges was conspicuous by its absence.

It wasn’t that delegates didn’t realize the importance of technology innovation.  On the contrary, many of the recommendations coming out of the Summit acknowledged the need to develop and use appropriately new and emerging technologies.  But there was a sense that technology innovation simply happens and that, as needs arise, solutions will naturally emerge.

I was reminded of this while listening to feedback from the Council on Water Security, whose members experienced a similar lack of awareness amongst Summit delegates.  When they asked people where the water would come from to support their ideas in various areas, the reply was inevitably “I guess it will come from somewhere” – to the amusement and consternation of the Council members.

The same blind spot seems to exist for technology innovation.  People realize that technology innovation is important. But when asked where it will come from, the assumption is simply that “it will come from somewhere.”

This is as dangerous as it is wrong.

Strategically relevant technology does not just happen.  It depends on targeted investment, coupling outputs to needs, and working with stakeholders to develop and implement appropriate and acceptable solutions.  And it takes time – lost of it.  Developing appropriate technology-based solutions to global challenges is only possible if  technology innovation policy is integrated into the decision-making process at the highest levels in government, industry and other relevant organizations.  Without such high-level oversight, there is a tendency to use the technology that’s available, rather than to develop the technology that’s needed.  And as the challenges of living in an over-populated and under-resourced world escalate, this will only exacerbate the disconnect between critical challenges and technology-based solutions.

The importance of technology innovation – and emerging technologies in particular – was highlighted by Lord Malloch-Brown in his closing remarks at this year’s Summit on the Global Agenda.  Yet there is still a way to go before technology innovation is integrated into the global agenda dialogue, rather than being tacked on to it.

At this year’s Summit, there was one Council out of seventy six that was specifically charged with addressing technology innovation – the Council on Emerging Technologies.  And in a move that speaks volumes about the economic and policy world’s disdain for science and technology, the Council was placed in the “Managing Global Risks and Addressing Systemic Failures” cluster.  Clearly, emerging technologies are perceived more as a threat than an enabler of solutions.

If progress is to be made, this must change in future years.  Technology innovation is key to improving the state of the world.  And getting it right – targeting research, translating innovation to practice and engaging stakeholders – is essential to addressing many of the major challenges being addressed by the Summit on the Global Agenda.  Rather than burying the Council on Emerging Technologies along with catastrophic risks, illicit trade, pandemics and other risk-focused councils, it surely makes sense to elevate it – along with other science and technology-rich councils – to a place where it can inform the dialogue at a much higher level.

Of course, I’m mindful here that this is the World Economic Forum I’m talking about, not the World Technology Innovation Forum.  But the cold hard truth is that without global intervention, there is no guarantee that technology innovation will provide solutions to the challenges that the Forum is attempting to address.

The bottom line is that whether we are talking about economic prosperity, social stability or personal well-being, we marginalize the role of technology innovation at our peril.  The broader work of the World Economic Forum reflects this.  Hopefully, so will next year’s Summit on the Global Agenda.

Good brainstorms are oft anticipated and rarely encountered.  So I tend to get a little excited when I find myself in one that stimulates rather than stultifies.

Today at the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda had more than it’s fair share of frustrations – including what I can only describe as a masterful demonstration in the art of assisted group-think entropy (sense in, nonsense out). But rather than moan about the negatives, I want to emphasize one of the highlights of the meeting – the Global Agenda Council Fair.

The Global Agenda Council Fair is the part of the Summit where attendees are free to roam amongst the 76 councils, talking about common interests and sparking new ideas off other delegates.  For me it’s like being a kid in a candy store – a chance to dip into seventy-six groups of people ready and willing to discuss everything from the Climate Change to the Future of Entertainment.  Sadly, with only an hour or so available and an Emerging Technologies agenda to follow, I had to restrict myself to two Councils today.  But it was still a lot of fun – and very worthwhile.

So let me give you a flavor of how things worked.

The first group I visited was the Catastrophic Risks Council.  When I arrived, there was a discussion in full flow about the need to get a handle on distinguishing more likely/higher impact global catastrophic risks from those less likely to happen or cause serious harm.  A more rational approach to risk identification and action – it was being argued – would help channel resources to where they could be used most effectively, while reducing anxiety from unwarranted speculation.  The solution – a World Risk Organization.

I had come to the group in part to talk about a proposal from my own Council on a new global center to inform policies on developing safe, sustainable and successful emerging technologies, and was immediately struck by how well the two ideas meshed together.  Emerging technologies have the potential to create serious problems if not developed appropriately.  Yet they also provide possible solutions to dealing with problems from other sources.  By taking an informed approach to weighing potential risks and benefits and taking action, I could see how the two ideas could be highly complimentary.

At this point, a delegate from the International Legal System Council entered the booth.  And the immediate reaction to the idea of a World Risk Organization?  “How about the risk-equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?”

It transpired that the International Legal System Council had been working on the idea of an Intergovernmental Panel on Global Risks.

Who would have thought there would be such synergy between catastrophic risks, emerging technologies and international legal systems!

The second group I visited was the Food Security Council.  Here the discussion was a little more diffuse, but stimulating nevertheless.  The idea of using mobile phones and cellular networks to monitor and treat crops came up as an innovative intersection between emerging technologies and ensuring good food production.  It’s not a new idea, but it is a great example of how new technologies can have unexpected benefits – if accompanied by some creative lateral thinking.

More interesting was a discussion about identifying counterfeit pesticides and fertilizers.  A delegate from the Illicit Trade Council had raised the issue of how important it is to track the origin of food products, preventing illicit – and potentially harmful – products from entering the food chain.  This led to an observation that counterfeit fertilizers and pesticides are a serious problem in some developing economies.  Not only do they undermine legitimate trade, but they often jeopardize the health and safety of crops – with serious consequences to communities that rely on them.  Apparently though – and this was news to me – the origins of fertilizers and pesticides in developing economies are often hard to identify.

There was a clear link here with the potential use of emerging technologies for enabling cost-effective and robust tagging of legitimate products.  Using advances in complex chemicals, engineered nanomaterials or bioengineering, it should be possible to develop new ways to ensure the quality of agricultural products – supporting higher quality and higher volume crop yields, and improving the health and lives of people dependent on them.

In the space of an hour I had learned some new stuff, added value to other people’s concepts, and started formulating some new ideas of my own.  And this was happening all around me – 700 people being exposed to dangerously high levels of mental stimulation!

For me, this was a highlight of today’s sessions.  Okay so the two-hour meeting on reducing ten sharp ideas to eight woolly ones was a little tedious, and working out what we were supposed to be doing was challenging at times.  But the sheer enjoyment and serendipity of the Council Fair more than made up for these.

The challenge now is seeing whether any of those sparks can be coaxed into a fully fledged fire!

It’s the end of day one at the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda, and I’m sitting in my rather comfortable hotel room overlooking Palm Island, trying to pull my thoughts together. It was a day for meeting old friends, making new acquaintances, listening to stirring speeches and exploring new challenges.  As you would expect from a 700 person-strong brainstorm, there were moments of disorientation and confusion.  But even these were stimulating in their own way – rather cleverly, the World Economic Forum has orchestrated a setting where serendipity becomes commonplace.

The real meat of the Summit begins tomorrow, when we start to swap ideas with other Global Agenda Councils (last year I spent an enjoyable hour talking about nanotechnology with the Council on Faith – not what I set out to do, but it’s these chance encounters that bring considerable added value to the Summit).  Today was more of a consolidation exercise – getting to grips with the areas that the Emerging Technologies Council will be focusing on over the next 12 months.

In our discussions, one topic came up that intrigued me – to the point that I made the mistake of suggesting I might follow up on it.  In talking about the role of technology innovation in society, we got onto the question of how technology innovation can enable social innovation.  As I suspect I will be expected to report back on this at some point, I thought I would start feeling out one or two ideas in today’s blog from the Summit.

The role of technology innovation in social innovation undoubtedly has a rich literature (although a quick Google search doesn’t reveal that much) – one which, I must confess, is beyond my reach sitting here at the end of a long, jet-lagged day.  But I do want to get a few thoughts down for further exploration regardless.

Much of the science and technology policy in the developed world is hooked on the idea of the technology fix: Got a problem – technology innovation can solve it.  I must confess, the idea (in a rather more sophisticated form) influences a lot of my thinking.  But this isn’t the only way of viewing the world.  There are those who argue that addressing some challenges will depend on social – not technological – innovation.  Advocating for lower energy use over better energy sources is one example.  Pushing for practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions rather than relying on climate engineering to “fix” global warming is another.

Challenges like energy generation, access to clean water, hunger and poverty are often held up as problems requiring technology-based solutions.  But they are also challenges that can be addressed – in part at least – through social innovation.  In fact, the argument that long-term solutions will depend on social change  in these areas is a pretty compelling one.

But this begs the question – can technology innovation be used to enable social innovation that leads to change?

Looking back over history, the answer seems to be yes.  The agricultural revolution enabled profound social changes, allowing stable communities to develop and freeing people to think about more than simply where the next mouthful of food was coming from.  The scientific revolution of the enlightenment transformed people’s understanding of the world and their place in it, and changed society as a result.  The industrial revolution laid the groundwork for today’s affluent first-world societies.

Of course, it can be argued that these technological innovations merely drove social change, rather than enabling social innovation, although I suspect the line between the two is more than a little blurred. But recent history seems to throw up numerous specific examples of technology innovation enabling social innovation – mobile phones connecting communities and providing access to expertise, low power LED lighting supporting increased literacy in developing economies, and social media building virtual communities that transcend geographical and political boundaries for example.

These and other examples suggest that, even when social innovation is important to addressing key challenges, emerging technologies can have a significant role to play in supporting it – technology innovation becomes an enabler of solutions, rather than a solution in and of itself.

But if this is the case, it makes sense to work out how best to use technology in this way, rather than leaving things to chance.

So these are the question that today’s discussions have lodged in my mind:  How can technology innovation be nurtured to provide tools that enable social innovation?  What are the key areas in which technology innovation has the potential to empower social innovation?  And how is the technology fix best balanced against the technology-enabled fix?

I see I’m going to have a restless night!

For the next three days I will be participating in and blogging from the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda in Dubai.  If last year’s summit – described as the “World’s largest brainstorming” – is anything to go by, we’re in for an intense few days.  The summit draws on the WEF’s Global Agenda Councils, and creates a forum for over 700 thought-leaders representing over 90 countries to mix and match ideas on issues as diverse as catastrophic global risks to the role of faith in society, and sustainable consumption to the future of entertainment.

This year, the Summit is focused on contributing to the World Economic Forum’s Global Redesign Initiative (GRI) – a multistakeholder dialogue addressing the challenges of the 21st century. Tapping into expertise within industry, governmental, civil society, academic and media communities, the GRI is addressing six themes:

1. Creating a Values Framework considers the universal values needed for constructive coexistence in an interdependent world characterized by cultural diversity.
2. Mitigating Global Risks and Addressing Systemic Failures – includes all eventualities and risks which may have adverse consequences on a global level.
3. Strengthening Economies encompasses all aspects of economic growth and development.
4. Enhancing Security speaks to the need for global, national and human security.
5. Ensuring Sustainability addresses human behaviour in the global ecosystem.
6. Building Effective Institutions reflects on the necessary institutional context for effective global governance.

Discussions over the next three days will revolve around these themes, as well as feeding directly into the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters.

Last year, I found it intriguing and more than a little worrying that, while many of the issues being addressed by the Global Agenda Councils depend on science and technology innovation, science and technology were not central to the discussions.  Hopefully this year will see a shift in emphasis.  The good news is that we now have a Council on Emerging Technologies (which I participate in), which will be working with a number of other Councils to help establish science and technology-grounded discussions.

Whether or not we achieve as much integration as I would like remains to be seen.  Either way, if last year was anything to go by, we’re in for a stimulating, challenging and exciting few days.  I must confess, I get a tremendous buzz out of dropping in on intense conversations in areas I know nothing about, with experts I would normally never cross paths with – and experiencing the mental light bulbs flash on as we compare notes and exchange ideas.  And with 700 smart people cloistered together for three days, I can guarantee there are going to be a lot of bulbs lighting up in Dubai this weekend.

Of course, the location helps – but it’s the people that matter.  Really…

If all goes according to plan, I’ll be posting each day between now and Sunday November 22nd on how the Summit’s going from my perspective, so stay tuned.

First thought I have to get there.

Signing off from JFK, waiting for the flight out to Dubai.

This is a first for 2020 Science – a plug for a meeting which I have nothing to do with!  But next month’s seminar on the Biopolitics of Popular Culture being run by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) looks so intriguing that I couldn’t resist! (that, and a heads-up from IEET Managing Director Mike Treder )

First though, a word on that term “biopolitics.”  Biopolitics is a rather versatile concept that embraces a whole raft of stuff – from politics of bioethics through the use of biotechnology to human enhancement (check this overview out if you really want your brain scrambled).  But there seems to be some convergence on the idea of biopolitics as grappling with the tough questions that arise at the intersection of emerging technologies and life.

In other words, how do we handle new technologies that could profoundly and intimately alter who we are and what we can do as a species?

When Jeff Goldblum’s character in the movie Jurassic Park came out with the line “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should” he was echoing a long-running debate on who decides how science is used.  As the rate of scientific discovery and technology innovation accelerates, this question is becoming increasingly relevant, and is central it seems to biopolitics.

But biopolitics is also being driven by another factor – imagination.

Imagination drives the vision of scientists underpinning emerging technologies – it’s the ever-present “what if…” of the consummate researcher.  It drives the promoters of emerging technologies – selling dreams of Utopian futures enabled by revolutionary breakthroughs.  And it fuels the aspirations and fears of people who stand to benefit or suffer from technological advancements – turning technological possibilities into imagined probabilities that end up influencing lives in complex ways.

And here you have the link with popular culture.

To quote the introduction to the IEET seminar,

Our most transcendent expectations for technology come from pop culture, and the most common objections to emerging technologies come from science fiction and horror, from Frankenstein and Brave New World to Gattaca and the Terminator.

Why is it that almost every person in fiction who wants to live a longer than normal life is evil or pays some terrible price? What does it say about attitudes towards posthuman possibilities when mutants in Heroes or the X-Men, or cyborgs in Battlestar Galactica or Iron Man, or vampires in True Blood or Twilight are depicted as capable of responsible citizenship?

Is Hollywood reflecting a transhuman turn in popular culture, helping us imagine a day when magical and muggle can live together in a peaceful Star Trek federation? Will the merging of pop culture, social networking and virtual reality into a heightened augmented reality encourage us all to make our lives a form of participative fiction?

It’s this interplay between popular imagination, technology development and – for want of a better word – “biopolitics” that I find fascinating.  And to explore it, IEET have lined up an equally fascinating group of people – including Annalee Newitz (editor of Science Fiction blog io9), David Brin (scientist and best-selling author), Natasha Vita-More (pioneer of transhumanists aesthetics) and Jamais Cascio (futurist), along with may others.

Sadly, I won’t be around in Irvine CA on December 4, and so will miss the fun.  But if you are even remotely interested in the intersection between popular culture and future technologies, this seems to be a meeting worth checking out – more details here.

As scientists, how we love to rail against the incompetence of the media.  As self-proclaimed keepers of the truth, we decry – usually rather vocally – the misinterpretation and misuse of our precious studies.  And as we commiserate together on the injustices of the world, we inevitably get to thinking that if only journalists could see the world as we do and get that down in writing (or on tape), things would be so much better.

Except, it isn’t always the journalists who are to blame for how science is portrayed in the media!

Take this case that landed in my metaphorical in-tray this morning for instance:

Yesterday, Texas A&M University put out a news item with the title “Technology may cool the laptop.” The piece starts:

Does your laptop sometimes get so hot that it can almost be used to fry eggs? New technology may help cool it and give information technology a unique twist, says Jairo Sinova, a Texas A&M University physics professor.

Aided by a short video, Professor Sinova, a co-author on the research being referred to, notes that

Laptops are getting increasingly powerful, but as their sizes are getting smaller they are heating up, so how to deal with excessive heat becomes a headache… “Theoretically, excessive heat may melt the laptop,” he adds. “This also wastes a considerable amount of energy.”

This is an important issue, although I suspect that the vision of melting laptops goes a little far.  But it gets you wondering what this amazing new breakthrough is that is going to prevent those embarrassing laptop melt-downs and inadvertent griddle emulations.  The answer? The Spin Injection Hall Effect, or SIHE – a relatively recently discovered phenomenon that results in electrons with different “spin” in a semiconductor leading to a measurable magnetic field.

The paper that the Texas A&M University news item refers to is “Spin-injection Hall effect in a planar photovoltaic cell” in the journal Nature Physics.  It appears in the September edition of the journal.  It’s an interesting and scientifically sound paper.  It describes work where an experimental semiconductor device is used to show that the Spin Injection Hall Effect can in principle be used to encode information in the spin state of electrons, then “read” that information back.

It is research that could be useful to new ways of transmitting and storing information in the future.

But keeping laptops cool?  Hardly!  And certainly not imminently.

So what’s going on here?  How do we get from some pretty esoteric research on electron spin to preventing “laptop-burn?”

The most generous explanation is that, in one possible future, this science could underpin technologies that lead to lower energy microprocessors, and that this is what the researchers latched on to in an attempt to make their work relevant to a broad audience. But this is an incredibly huge leap.  It’s the scientific equivalent of playing the lottery – speculation in the extreme.  There’s a small chance that the science might lead, through a long chain of events, to microprocessors 12 – 50 years down the line that are faster and more efficient.  But making your MacBook Pro run cooler?  Give me a break!

Another explanation is that Texas A&M wanted to sex the research up – raising their profile at the expense of informed science reporting.

Or maybe someone just got hold of the wrong end of the stick – or the wrong stick entirely.

I’m not sure which of these is closer to the truth.  But what is clear is that this type of misrepresentation of the science at source is not uncommon, and it is highly damaging to understanding of and engagement in science within society.

In this case, the assumptions and speculations behind the laptop claims weren’t clarified, and little attempt was made to distinguish between the science and the fantasies it inspired.  As a result, media outlets that picked up on the story simply propagated the misinformation – including Science Daily.  And as many readers would not have access to the original paper, they would not have the means to test the claims being made.

If research institutions misrepresent the science they are involved in, what hope is there for informed science coverage in the media?  And more importantly, how on earth are people to get an informed sense of emerging science and technology, and engage in a meaningful dialogue on its development and implementation?

I’m all for imagining where different avenues of research might lead.  But fantasizing about future applications as if they are just around the corner is naive at best, and just plain cynical at worst.  And the sad thing is, it ends up further disengaging people from the process of science and technology innovation – robbing them of the ability to participate effectively in a science and technology-driven society.

Effective science coverage in the media is under threat, and there many factors at play here.  But surely this makes it even more important that scientists and research institutions don’t simply add to the problem.  I’m probably being a little unfair picking on Texas A&M here – they aren’t the only ones feeding the media with questionable material.  But it seems that if the science community is serious about good science reporting, it needs to get its own house in order before pointing too many fingers at others.

After all, journalists and others reporting on science and technology are only as good as their sources.  Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how hot or cold the laptop is running!

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/10/30/do-scientists-encourage-misleading-media-coverage/feed/ 32 http://2020science.org/2009/10/23/risk-innovation-you-what-desparately-seeking-advice/ http://2020science.org/2009/10/23/risk-innovation-you-what-desparately-seeking-advice/#comments Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:07:39 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2348

Here’s something I’ve been chewing over for the past few weeks:  How do you capture succinctly the idea of developing innovative new approaches to identifying, assessing, managing and otherwise dealing with risks to human health?

What I’ve ended up with is “Risk Innovation” – but I’m not convinced it works.

So I thought I would see if anyone else had any other bright ideas!

This is the challenge in a nut shell:

When dealing with the possibility of substances harming people, there are well-established science-based approaches to identifying and quantifying the risks, backed up by a standard set of approaches to dealing with them (with regulation typically rising to the top of the pile).  But these aren’t always effective – and as technologies become more complex, development life cycles become faster and societal hierarchies shift, there’s going to be an increasing need to find new ways to deal with possible health impacts arising from substances.

In fact, the life cycle of new technologies is becoming so short that it won’t be long before they are superseded long before conventional approaches to assessing and managing risks have kicked in.

In other words, technology innovation has to be accompanied by innovations in how we handle risks, if things are going to get better rather than worse for us in the future.

This is a young area of research that is developing rapidly.  It’s stimulating, exciting and, above all, crucial to the success of emerging technologies (as well as dealing with new problems emerging from previous technologies).

But it doesn’t have a convenient “handle.”

“Innovation in risk identification, assessment, management and governance” gets to the nub of the idea.  But it is also on the soporific side of engaging.  Not to beat about the bush, it’s just not sexy!  The same goes for various other permutations that try to capture accurately the idea of developing new approaches to handling risk.

So what I’ve ended up with is “Risk Innovation.”

My problem though is that, while the phrase is catchy, it’s wide open to interpretation.  It could mean anything from innovative approaches to dealing with risk, to innovative ways of increasing risk – not something most self-respecting health professionals would want to be associated with!!

But what’s the alternative?  Or am I being over-sensitive here?

Any thoughts here (please use the comments area below) would be more than welcome.

Thanks!

Part 8 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

Much to my embarrassment, I’ve just realized that it was over four months ago that I wrote the previous blog in this series – a series that was supposed to evolve over just a few weeks!  Most inconveniently, other priorities ended up interfering with my well-laid plans and I found myself distracted from completing the series, just three posts before its conclusion.

The good news though is that this gives me an excuse to provide a lightning summary of the story so far, which goes something like this:

• We stand at a nexus of unimaginable technological potential, and unprecedented global challenges.  How we develop and use science and technology over the coming decades will determine the quality (and possibly even the quantity) of life for coming generations.
• Three factors in particular are influencing the challenges we face, and the tools we have at our disposal to meet them.  These are the rate at which knowledge and ideas are propagating and influencing people, the increasingly strong links between human actions and environmental re-actions, and the ability of scientists, technologists and engineers to bend the material world to their every whim; from atoms and molecules to global weather systems.  These are my three “C’s” – communication, coupling and control.
• The coupling between human actions and environmental re-actions is cumulative, non-linear, and rapidly increasing in importance.  Which means that we are now facing global challenges that are more complex and further reaching than any previous generation has had to deal with.
• Rapid changes in how we communicate with each other are rewriting the rules on how society operates, from the global scale to the local level.
• High-impact advanced in science and technology are being driven increasingly by advances in control over materials at the scale of atoms and molecules.  Atom-level control over everything from DNA to advanced materials to smart drugs is poised to vastly extend our technological reach as a species.
• Separately, these three factors confront us with new challenges and new opportunities.  Together, they demand a new way of thinking about science and technology if we’re going to ride the wave of the future, rather than being engulfed by it.

The obvious question at this point – and the subject of this blog – is “how effective are current approaches to developing and using science and technology, and what (if anything) needs to change if we are to adapt and thrive as a species?”  In other words, how as a society can we make decisions that will ensure we have the necessary scientific understanding and technological know-how to overcome emerging challenges and realize the opportunities facing us, without creating more problems than we solve?

And that means we need to talk about science and technology policy.

Effective science and technology policy depends on a robust a framework for decision-making that helps ensure an appropriate level of investment in science and technology, and a good return on that investment.  Every developed country/economy has well-established approaches to science and technology policy—whether formally expressed, or simply in the form of a prevalent set of assumptions or beliefs amongst policy makers.  And these approaches have worked okay in the main over the past fifty years or so.

But are they flexible enough to weather the looming challenges of the 21^st century?

In the United States, approaches to science and technology policy still reflect largely the thinking of Vannevar Bush.  In 1945, Bush presented President Truman with a vision of science in Science, The Endless Frontier that started with basic research, and ended with social and economic growth.  While thinking has evolved since then, many policy makers are still strongly influenced by his ideas.

In crude terms, Bush’s concept was that pure research (directed predominantly by scientists) leads to applied research, which in turn leads to technological innovation.  This in turn stimulates economic growth, which leads to more jobs, more money, and a better quality of life for citizens.

This top-down, linear model has worked well over the years in the U.S. – scientists have been funded reasonably well by the Federal Government, and have been given considerable latitude in what they do.  And in the U.S. at least, this investment seems to have resulted in considerable technology innovation and wealth generation.

But I’m not sure the same approach has got what it takes to address the very different challenges of the 21^st century.

Although current approaches to science and technology policy tend to be more sophisticated than Bush’s model, there is still a tendency to take a top-down linear approach.  Typically under this model, goals for science and technology investment are crafted, funding levels decided, and mechanisms and routes by which those funds will be allocated are identified within government.  It is then assumed that this up-front decision-making will lead to innovation, which will lead to jobs, wealth and, at the end of the day, a better quality of life for citizens.

The degree to which policy makers adhere to or diverge from this (admittedly simplistic) overview depends on where you are in the world.  But this general approach still plays a large role in determining the direction of and funding for science and technology policy in many countries.

Yet this very hierarchical approach to decision-making may not have what it takes to ensure scientific and technological success over the coming years.

First up, it assumes that heavy investment in basic research will naturally lead to technology innovation.  This over-simplistic assumption has been questioned repeatedly over the past decades, perhaps most notably by Donald E. Stokes in his book Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation – it’s an assumption that is likely to be further challenged as the interplay between science, technology and society becomes increasingly complex and dynamic.

Then it assumes that up-front investment in science and technology will naturally lead to an improved quality of life through wealth creation.  Yet the values on which the model is based are beginning to look a little simplistic—dated even—in today’s diverse and interconnected world.

And finally, it supports a top-down approach to science and technology policy that encourages policy lock-in.  This occurs when there are few mechanisms to rethink policy decisions that don’t work—a very precarious position to be in where the policy process potentially lags a long way behind technological progress.

In other words, the widely used linear model of science policy could well fall flat in a world where communication, coupling and control demand responsive and adaptive approaches to guiding and utilizing science and technology.

So what’s the alternative?

A complete rethink of science and technology policy frameworks is way beyond the scope of this blog.  But two issues stand out as being at the top of the rethink-list: the need for a less hierarchical policy framework, and the need for more effective feedback mechanisms.

Starting from the bottom, most people would agree that the end goal of investing in science and technology is improved quality of life.  But what this means and the route to achieving it will vary, depending on a number of factors.  The concept that technology innovation and wealth generation will automatically lead to an improved quality of life is one perspective—but it isn’t the only one.  As social and political boundaries are redrawn through new ways of communicating and technology-driven possibilities advance at an increasing rate, I suspect this perspective will begin to look a little naïve.  An alternative approach is to have multiple goals for the science and technology endeavor—recognizing that wealth, jobs, quality of life etc. are important and intertwined, but not necessarily linearly connected.  In other words, recognizing that quality of life may depend on more than making money!

Similarly, I suspect there will need to be a rethink of the relationship between setting top-level goals for science and technology policy and the means of achieving those goals.  Rather than a top-level steer on science and technology policy, it is going to become increasingly important to flatten the process of crafting policies that determine the direction research and development is pointed in, how much is invested in it, and how the money is spent.

But perhaps most importantly, there will need to be increased feedback between what comes out of science and technology policy, and what goes in.

In any complex and dynamic system, feedback is the key to ensuring stability and adaptability.  The Bush-type hierarchical model of science and technology policy has relatively little in the way of feedback.  But this will need to change if policies are to lead to scientific research and technological innovation that achieve what they set out to.  Rapid advances in communication, coupling and control are pushing us a long way out of equilibrium—without effective feedback loops, the consequences could be catastrophic.

A robust science and technology policy framework will depend on many and varied feedback mechanisms.  But amongst these, the ability to review inputs against outputs, and the participation of people and organizations affected by policy decisions, will be essential.

From this perspective, a revised science and technology policy framework that will help us rise to the challenges of the 21^st century might look something like this:

This is still rather simplistic.  It also reflects to a degree changes in science and technology policy that are already occurring in some countries.  But it does provide some insight into how approaches to science and technology might be crafted that will help us not just cope with life in the 21^st century, but to thrive—to ride the wave of the future rather than being engulfed by it.

I’ll look at some of these approaches to science and technology in the next blog in the series – Completing the circle: Coupling science & technology outputs to inputs.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide

Next: Completing the circle: Coupling science & technology outputs to inputs [Coming soon]

Sunday morning breakfast – a croissant, a coffee, and a stress-free morning.

But wait a minute…

I wonder how healthy all that butter is?  When did I last have my cholesterol levels checked?  Were they high?  Will my crisp, moist butter croissant push me into a French pastry-coronary?

And how about the coffee?  Didn’t I hear that caffeine gives you cancer?  Maybe that was just the Daily Mail on another cancer scare spree.

But there’s no smoke without fire…

Bother – what am I going to do?  I can already feel the panic rising!

Hang it all, I’ll just head out to MacDonald’s for a Sausage Egg and Cheese McGriddle, with a couple of hash browns on the side.  After all, didn’t someone say it’s healthy to start the day with a good breakfast?

Okay so I’m not really sitting down to croissants and coffee (more’s the pity), and I’m not going to rush off for a MacDonald’s breakfast.  But it is a Sunday morning, and with my brain in weekend mode (i.e. slow, relaxed, prone to roaming, uninformed speculation…), I found myself ruminating over something a friend said in an email a few days ago…

It concerned apparent resistance to having H1N1 flu shots in some quarters – an issue that is still bubbling away in the news.

I’m not going to write about the H1N1 vaccine directly – that would be irresponsible given my limited knowledge and my Sunday morning torpor.  But the issue does raise an interesting question of what happens when we are forced to consciously make decisions we might usually take for granted.

Martye’s email came on the tail of the latest poll from the Associated Press and GfK on people’s intentions to be vaccinated against H1N1.  The poll suggested that people were more wary of the new vaccine than “normal” flu vaccines, even though each year’s batch of flu vaccines is tailor made for that year’s prevalent virus strains – something that Martye had witnessed himself anecdotally.

He wondered how this played into people’s trust of science, scientists and government, and the role of mis-information in the decisions people make.

Because this is a Sunday morning, and there are important Sunday morning things to do (like find those croissants), this is a question that will have to wait until another day.  But it did get me thinking about the degree to which too much information, or a particular focus on an issue, can create a quandary by shifting the decisions we make from the subconscious to the conscious level.

As a species, we’re pretty adept at letting the subconscious parts of our brains do the heavy lifting when it comes to making decisions.  Just imagine how tedious life would be if we needed to analyze the pros and cons of every move or decision we made – much like the coffee and croissant illustration above, we would become paralyzed by indecision.  But we’d also more than likely end up making decisions that were more based on what we were comfortable with, rather than what was good for us.

This raises a real dilemma though, and one I don’t have a good answer to.  A major thrust of what I do is advocating for and enabling informed, evidence-based decision-making.  It’s something I believe in strongly – that in a science and technology-driven society, people should be enabled to make the best possible decisions for themselves and their society based on good evidence and strong scientific principles.

Yet it seems that where the decisions people need to make are far from black and white, forcing them to think about things could end up leading to choices that are more harmful than helpful.

The H1N1 flu vaccine seems to be a case in point.  If it was rolled out as just another annual flu vaccine, many people would have accepted it without question – the decision-making would have been at the subconscious level.

But because the issues of its importance and possible downsides have been raised explicitly, people are being forced to make a conscious decision whether to have it or not.

And kicking up the decision-making process from the subconscious domain to the conscious level has led to confusion and indecision.

So what should we do?  Should complex decisions be left in the hands of “experts?”  Should information – evidence – be withheld from people who don’t have the ability to process and use it?  Should we just accept that others are more informed than we are – and trust them?

At this point, every bone in my body is screaming that transparency, access to information and personal decision-making autonomy are moral obligations in a mature society, and that a hierarchical technocracy is not the way to go. Yet, if this is the case, we need to face the fact that more information isn’t necessarily a good thing on its own.  We need to develop the social tools to use it wisely, empowering individuals to make decisions that benefit themselves and society without leading to undue paralysis and harm.

This is a tough task.  I’m sure there are mountains of scholarly works that address it.  But I’ve yet to see any clear routes forward emerge.

Yet if we are going to cope with new challenges in a world where information spreads like wildfire, it seems more important than ever to work out how to empower people to make responsible and informed decisions on risks and benefits, without becoming paralyzed, or forced into relying on comfortable but possibly unhelpful decision-making shortcuts.

It seems that too much choice could be bad for the health.  But I suspect that not enough choice – and a lack of help, guidance and other tools for making informed decisions – will be worse for the health in the long run.

But that is most definitely a Monday morning problem.

Now, back to that croissant and coffee…

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/10/11/is-too-much-choice-bad-for-the-health/feed/ 14 http://2020science.org/2009/09/28/so-you%e2%80%99re-curious-about-nanotechnology%e2%80%a6/ http://2020science.org/2009/09/28/so-you%e2%80%99re-curious-about-nanotechnology%e2%80%a6/#comments Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:53:17 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2283

Curious, concerned or just plain confused about nanotechnology?  The new website Nano & Me might be just what you are looking for.

Nano & Me - a new website for everything nanotech

Funded in part by the UK department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and developed by the Responsible Nano Forum, Nano & Me is aimed at providing clear and balanced information on an emerging technology more usually associated with hype and speculation.  I’ve been aware of the pending website for some time, but it’s only recently that I’ve had the chance to test-drive it.  And I must confess, I am impressed – Nano & Me is quite possibly the best one-stop-shop for down to earth information on nanotech around.  Whether you simply heard about nanotech on the radio and want to know more, were wondering why your tennis racquet was nanotech-enabled, or are scratching your head over the latest nanotechnology claims and counter-claims, there’s something here for you…

There’s been tremendous investment in nanotechnology over the past ten years or so – for instance, in 2008 a whopping $18 billion was invested in nanotech R&D by governments businesses and others around the world according to Lux Research. Not surprisingly, a certain level of “marketing” has accompanied this investment—we’re told nanotechnology will transform our lives, solve global problems, stimulate economies and create jobs.  On the flip side, there are plenty of groups—researchers even—warning that the new technology could cause more problems than it solves if we don’t get our act together.

So you’ve heard that nanotech is the next big thing, that it is important, that it could be dangerous, what’s your next step—where can you get an honest perspective that cuts through the hype and tells you want you need to know?

Surprisingly, your options are remarkably limited.  You could pick up a popular book on nanotechnology – Nanotechnology for Dummies say, or Richard Jones’ Soft Machines.  But these are not for the faint hearted—you need to be pretty dedicated to learning about the science of the small to get through them.  Alternatively, you could check out the various websites dedicated to nanotech—the US National Nanotechnology Initiative website for instance, or Nanotechnology Now.  But most of these sources present nanotechnology in a certain light —even if it’s simply a desire to tell you how great nanotech is.  And to be honest, most of them are impenetrable unless you know exactly what you’re looking for.

The sad fact is that if you have a passing interest in nanotechnology, you don’t have an advanced degree in science or technology, and you have no stomach for hype, your options are limited.

It’s this void that Nano & Me attempts to fill.

Nano & Me was established through funding from the UK Government and the Esme Fairbairn Foundation to be an information hub for nanotechnology, and a focus of debate for anyone interested in its development, its use and its implications.  Quoting from the website,

“Nanoandme.org is a website for anyone who wants to know more about nanotechnology. You might have heard something on the news you wanted to check out, or be a small business thinking about using a nanomaterial and want to know about regulation or safety issues. You could be a school child needing information for a project or just be curious to know what on earth it is.”

On opening the website, you are faced with an attractive scene of urban and rural bliss, dominated by a central signpost directing you to different areas on the site.  Despite its seeming simplicity, this opening screen is deceptively sophisticated.

First off—and admittedly this may be a cultural thing—it draws you into the site.  This looks like a welcoming and comfortable space to find out about nanotech in.

Secondly, the central signpost directs users to where they would like to go in an intuitively clear way—whether you are interested in what nanotech is, where it’s being used, safety issues, regulation, or social and ethical issues.

But here’s the clever bit—pass your cursor over the hospital, the cosmetics commercial, the flowers, and a hundred and one other parts of the opening screen, and you are provided with access to more information on how nanotechnology relates to these areas.  Here’s an example:  Place the cursor on the bottle of sunscreen and you get:

“High factor nano sunscreens are transparent, not white and gloopy.”

along with a link to more information.  Or select the river, and a bubble appears telling you that when it comes to water treatment,

“nanoparticles bind with pollutants in contaminated water and help to clean it up.”

I like this interface.  It’s attractive.  It’s engaging.  And it provides a fast and intuitive portal to more information in areas that users are likely to be interested in.

Clicking on the signpost takes users to one of six areas on the website: What is nano? Nano products;  Nano safety; Social & ethical; Regulation; and The nano debate.  Each area follows a similar format:  The right side of the page list the various topics covered, “chapter-style,” while the center of the page provides clear and concise information on the current topic.  The left of the page provides links to more in-depth information on the topic selected.  While surrounding the main content are links to other related resources, and relevant nano-factoids.

To give you a feel for how this works, this is a screenshot of the “Nano products” page:

Nano and Me products page

Down the right hand side of the page are the chapters—twelve areas where nanotechnology is making a difference to the products we use.  Clicking on one – Environment, say—brings up basic information on how nanotechnology is being used in that area, and what the pros and cons are.

Nano and Me environmental products page

To the left of the screen are links to further information, including future directions of nanotechnology uses in the environment, and safety issues.  While to the right is a link to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Consumer Products Inventory—a free web-based inventory of consumer products allegedly based on nanotechnology.

While the content changes according to which area of the website is being viewed, the format is similar—starting off with simple information, but allowing viewers to delve deeper into it if they want.  This is an approach that seems to work well.  You don’t feel overwhelmed with information.  But you are given the option of finding out more if you want.

Rather than go through each section, it’s far better if I leave you to explore the website yourself.  I think you will be pleasantly surprised at both how easy it is to navigate, and how relevant the information is—whether you are a complete nano-novice, or have been interested in the field for some time.

This is an impressive website from a number of angles.  For one, it seems to avoid the trap of either hyping up nanotechnology’s promise, or placing undue focus on possible risks.  Rather, it provides an honest perspective of where we’re going with this, what the possibilities are, and where the speed bumps might be.  But it also does all of this in an incredibly intuitive way.  I can imagine young kids having no problem using the site and learning something.  At the same time—and this is really smart of the website designers—Nano & Me is sophisticated enough to appeal to adults.  And not only those with a passing interest in nanotech—I have a sneaking suspicion this will find its way onto the bookmark list of policy makers, researchers and non-government organizations engaged in nanotech as well!

The bottom line here is that nanotechnology isn’t the most significant thing happening in the world, but it is important—and more and more people are trying to work out what on earth it’s all about and what it means to them.  Nano & Me fills a vital gap here.  For anyone who struggles with science and technology, it’s the perfect way of learning about nanotechnology without being intimidated.  But it also has enough depth to satisfy anyone faced with making tough decisions on nanotech—from whether to buy the latest nano-cosmetic to whether to regulate the next nano-material.

And—importantly—it provides a forum for anyone – anyone – to get involved with the nano debate.  If you are excited, concerned, or just plain confused about nanotech—this is the place for you to make your voice heard.

The Nano & Me website is a work in progress, and users are encouraged to chip in their thoughts on where it can be improved.  But even so, it’s pretty slick.  It may not be perfect.  But at this point, it’s the best all-round go-to place for information on nanotechnology.

My recommendation: Use it!

Where’s the best place to look for down to earth information on nanotechnology safety?  Surprisingly, given how much time I spend speaking and writing about the subject, I don’t think I have ever sat down and compiled such a list.  But while preparing for this year’s annual meeting of the Nanotechnology Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) (surely the coolest nanotech meeting around by the way!) it struck me that such a list might actually be useful.

So here’s my first cut at some places you might want to look if you are interested in nanotech safety.

It’s by no means exhaustive, and it was compiled primarily to support my talk at the NISE Net annual meeting this week.  But it might be of some use – especially if you are interested in the subject, but don’t know where to start.

In putting the list together, I’ve tried to focus on papers and websites that are informative and trustworthy (in my opinion), that you don’t need a PhD in nanotoxicology to get something out of, and that are freely available. In each case, I have tried to provide some idea of what each resource covers, and who might find it useful.

There are bags more good resources out there – this is just a start.  But hopefully, it’s a useful one.

Nano & Me

Nano & Me

What is it? A website targeted at providing readers with clear and accessible information on nanotechnology.  Created by the UK-based Responsible Nano Forum and the Together Agency, and supported by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), it covers everything from what nanotech is, to where it’s being used.  The website’s coverage of safety issues is simple, clear and balanced.

Who should use it? Anyone who wants to know more about nanotechnology, but especially newbie’s to the subject.  No science required.

What I like about it: A slick website that puts the information you are looking for at your fingertips, without being condescending or confusing.  Highly recommended.

Link: http://www.nanoandme.org

Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties

Royal Society

What is it? An influential 2004 review of the opportunities and challenges of nanotechnology, from the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Chapter 5 provides an excellent overview of the potential risks presented by some products of nanotechnology, and is still relevant five years on.

Who should read it? The report was written for the UK government, but you don’t need a degree in science to understand it.  A slightly meatier read than the Nano & Me website.

What I like about it: Informed, authoritative, relevant and readable.

Link: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm

Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnology (SCENIHR)

SCENIHR

What is it? A detailed technical report on the current state of the science on nanotechnology safety from SCENIHR – the European Directorate General for Health and Consumers Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.

Who should read it? This is a technical document, and will probably be more soporific than stimulating to anyone not steeped in nanotechnology safety research and policy.  But if you can get over this barrier, it contains a wealth of information.  There is also a lay version of the report available online though, that is well worth checking out.

What I like about it: Its depth and relevance.

Link: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_023.pdf [PDF, 500 KB]

Nanotoxicology:  An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles.

Oberdörster, Oberdörster and Oberdörster,

What is it? A review paper on “nanotoxicology” written in 2005 by the father, daughter and son team of Günter, Eva and Jan Oberdörster.

Who should read it? Researchers, regulators, decision makers and anyone else interested in nanoparticle toxicity.  This is an academic review paper, so you probably wouldn’t want to read it if you only had a passing interest in nanotechnology safety.  But for anyone who isn’t scared of a bit of science, it provides an excellent review of the field that is still relevant four years on.

What I like about it: Günter Oberdörster is one of the foremost authorities on nanoparticle toxicity, and this paper expertly sets out the important questions surrounding nanoparticle toxicology.  Highly recommended reading.

Link: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7339/abstract.html

Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation

Seaton et al.

What is it? A recent review paper by Anthony Seaton, Lang Tran, Rob Aitken and Ken Donaldson that provides a unique and highly informative overview of nanoparticle safety from the perspective of the workplace.

Who should read it? Anyone trying to make sense of the possible risks presented by engineered nanoparticles, and how to avoid them.

What I like about it: Well-presented arguments that frame engineered/manufactured nanoparticle risks in the context of what is already known, and what still needs to be known.

Link: http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/08/31/rsif.2009.0252.focus.full

Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An information exchange with NIOSH

Approaches to Safety Nanotechnology

What is it? A compendium of information on nanotechnology safety in the workplace, from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Who should read it? Anyone responsible workplace safety. The report is also a mine of information for readers of all backgrounds who are interested in the safety of engineered nanomaterials.

What I like about it: A comprehensive and periodically updated evaluation of the state of the science on nanomaterial safety, from one of the world’s foremost workplace safety research organizations.

Link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/

National Nanotechnology Initiative website

National Nanotechnology Initiative

What is it? The official website of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  The website includes a section on environmental, safety and health aspects of nanotechnology.

Who should read it? Anyone interested in the US government’s take on nanotechnology safety.

What I like about it: It’s a window into what the US government – one of the leading funders of nanotechnology research and development – are doing in this area.

Link: http://www.nano.gov/html/society/EHS.html

International Council On Nanotechnology website

ICON

What is it? A multi-stakeholder organization set up by the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University.  For info. on nanotechnology safety, check out the backgrounders, the news feed (also on Twitter) and the ICON blog.

Who should use it? The ICON backgrounders, blog and news feed are relevant to anyone interested in the latest developments in nanotech safety.

What I like about it: Comprehensive news on nanotechnology safety, and background papers that explain complex science in a simple way.

Link: http://icon.rice.edu/

SAFENANO website

SAFENANO

What is it? An information resource on nanotechnology safety, from the UK-based Institute for Occupational Medicine.  A great source of news, analysis and opinions.

Who should use it? Anyone interested in the latest on nanotechnology safety, with a focus on the workplace.

What I like about it: Down to earth information.  I also contribute to the SAFENANO blog though, so I might be biased!

Link: http://www.safenano.org/

2020 Science website

2020 Science

What is it? OK so this is a little self-serving, but I write so much about nanotechnology safety that I thought I should include 2020 Science here.  For a list of nanotech safety-related blogs, check these out, or start off with Ten things everyone should know about nanotechnology safety.

Who should use it? Anyone who wants to find out more about issues around nanotechnology safety.

What I like about it: Mmm, I don’t think I’m the best qualified person to answer that.

Link: http://2020science.org

In restricting myself to ten resources here, I’m sure I have failed to mention many that others would have included.  So if you have a publicly accessible website, paper or other resource on nanotechnology safety you think people would find useful, please do mention it in the comments below.

Update 09/15/09:  Linked screenshots to respective websites

Regulators around the world are currently grappling with how to manage the possible risks associated with first generation nanotechnologies.  But increasingly sophisticated nanotechnology-based products are coming – will the old regulations still cover these emerging nanotechnologies, or is a re-think in how substances are regulated in order?  These are some rough notes I prepared for a short talk given at Chatham House in the UK, on some of the possible challenges to regulating next generation nanotechnologies.

Nanotechnology is oft-heralded as the next industrial revolution—something that will transform our lives.  But despite this lofty vision, many of the nano-driven products that consumers and regulators are grappling with at the moment seem rather mundane.  Nanotechnology promoters talk about smart drugs, super-strong materials and science fiction-like invisibility cloaks. Yet for most people, the nanotechnology of the hear-and-now doesn’t extend much beyond sunscreens and stain-resistant pants.

Okay, so this is something of an oversimplification.  But it’s fair to say that regulatory agencies charged with protecting people and the environment  have so far been faced with rather simple and crude nanotech-enabled products.  These early products of engineering matter at the nanoscale have raised plenty of challenges of their own when it comes to ensuring safe use—like how a material that can cause harm because of its size as well as its chemistry should be regulated, or which of the current battery of toxicity tests applied to new substances work for nanomaterials, and which do not.  However, with some creative thinking, a dash of new research and a bit of hand waving, there’s a general (although by no means universal) feeling that existing regulatory frameworks can just about stretch to cover many of the current products of nanotechnology.

But will this always be the case?

What are the chances of future developments in nanotechnology throwing up products that are so unusual, that existing regulatory frameworks are stressed to the point of breaking?

Looking into the emerging technologies crystal ball is always a dangerous business—there’s often a gaping chasm between the seeds of new technologies and those that eventually make it to market.  Development timescales are inevitably longer than predicted.  And more often than not, the most successful new technologies are the ones that sneak under the radar – taking everyone unawares.

Yet even with these limitations, we probably know enough about where nanotechnology is heading to gain some insight into whether existing regulatory frameworks are likely to suffice, or whether, at some point, new approaches need to be considered.

In tackling the question of future regulatory challenges from emerging nanotechnologies, it seems important to ask “what is different about nanotech?”  It’s where new materials and products deviate from established norms that regulatory frameworks will be most likely be stressed. Some emerging products of nanotechnology will quite conceivably look very conventional from a regulatory perspective – these shouldn’t cause too many problems.  But where a new product’s ability to cause harm doesn’t fit with current understanding, alarm bells should start to ring.

In working out what (if anything) is different about nanotech, there is a tendency to fall back on generally accepted definitions of nanotechnology, such as the one crafted by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  But this is a temptation that needs to be resisted.  The NNI definition of nanotechnology is one of expedience, not science. It serves the purpose of stimulating new research and technology innovation in an exciting new area—and does this brilliantly.  But it doesn’t clearly define a set of products and processes that have common and specific safety issues; and it was never intended to.

Instead, it is more helpful to ask how materials engineered at a nanometer scale might behave differently to more conventional materials, and how this might affect their safe use.

In asking “what is different?” it is useful to distinguish between the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of material that has been engineered at the nanoscale.  In essence, to differentiate between what it is, and what it does. Again, this is something of a simplification, but is useful for getting a handle on what might be important here.

Intrinsic properties can be seen as those that associated with the material itself, rather than how it is being used.  For instance, chemical composition leads to intrinsic properties. Size and shape can also underpin some intrinsic properties.

Some materials begin to show novel intrinsic chemical and biological properties when formed as nanometer-sized particles, or are engineered with nanometer-scale structures.  Some materials that are engineered at the nanometer scale can be used in different ways—and get to different places—simply by nature of their small size – this can also be seen as an intrinsic property of the nano-engineered material.

Much of nanotechnology is about tapping into and exploiting these novel, scale-specific intrinsic properties.

From a regulatory perspective, it becomes important to know when these novel intrinsic properties lead to enhanced or new risks to people and the environment—in other words, when does engineering a substance at the nanoscale leads to a deviation in its conventionally established risk profile?  This is very much the challenge presented by the first wave of engineered nanomaterials that regulators are currently facing.

These challenges are not insignificant.  It is clear that the potential impact from nanomaterials can no longer be predicted by chemistry alone, and regulators are having to adjust to a world where physical form and chemical composition potentially determine risk.  But there are a number of organizations that believe that with the right research, and appropriate interpretation of existing regulations, these challenges are not insurmountable—at least for many types of nanomaterials currently being used.

The situation is not so simple though when it comes to addressing the extrinsic properties of engineered nanomaterials.

But what is the nature of these extrinsic properties?

An important characteristic of nanotechnology is the sophistication it brings to working with matter at the level of atoms and molecules.  Advances in tools and understanding are making it possible to precisely engineer the structure of matter at the finest possible level.  As a result, we are beginning to create materials that are unique—not only do they have properties never before available to scientists, engineers and technologists; they also potentially present human health and environmental risks never before encountered.

This sophistication brings within our grasp the ability to build complex “devices” that are mere nanometers in size.  Using atoms and molecules (or small clusters of them) as our building blocks, we can start to engineer matter at a nanometer scale, and in the words of the late Richard Smalley, “build stuff that does stuff.”

At this point, the extrinsic properties of the “stuff” that we build become critical—the functionality associated with a carefully engineered collection of chemicals and components (what it does) becomes more than just the sum of its parts.

It is these extrinsic properties that may end up stressing established regulatory frameworks to breaking point.

At this point, it is worth clarifying what I mean by “device.”  I’m thinking here of something engineered to do something. From this perspective, a lever or a fork is a simple device.  So is a chair.  Or a car.  At the nanoscale, a device is anything that has been engineered to do something that goes beyond the intrinsic properties of its individual components. So a nanoparticle engineered with just the right size and shape to target and penetrate a tumor is a simple device.  So is a material engineered to bend light or transmit electrons in a specific way.

This is intuitive when working with objects at the human scale.  The difference in functionality between a lump of iron, a knife, and a car, is blindingly obvious.  So are the relative risks.  Once engineered, the extrinsic properties of the resulting device become critical in determining how it is used, and how it might cause harm.

This holds true at the nanoscale as much as it does at the human scale.  But here we face a conceptual hurdle that regulators will need to overcome if the products of emerging nanotechnologies are to be handled safely.  There is a natural tendency to assume that, if we can’t see the physical form and complexity of something, its form and complexity don’t matter.  As a consequence, most substance-related regulations—irrespective of the country or region they apply to—focus on the intrinsic properties of materials—which usually means focusing on their chemical composition.

To be fair, this chemistry world-view has been reasonably effective in reducing the impact of materials on people and the environment over the past fifty years or so.  But nanotechnology is increasingly pushing us into a post-chemistry world, where knowing what something is made of is no guarantee that we know how to handle it safely.

So assuming that nanotechnology is going to lead to increasingly sophisticated materials and “devices” that may present significant challenges to existing regulatory frameworks in the future, do we have an idea of what these emerging technologies will look like?

I’m not sure how far we can predict specific products that are likely to hit the market over the next decade or so.  But it should be possible to get a handle on emerging nanotechnology trends that could help inform future regulatory decisions. Here, the key is sophistication – how will our increasing dexterity at the nanoscale change things?

Mike Roco – one of the instigators of the modern nanotechnology movement –famously mapped out a series of nanotechnology “generations” that try to capture this idea of increasing sophistication.  These progress from passive nanostructures through active nanostructures to systems of nanosystems and molecular nanosystems.  However, as J. Clarence Davies notes in his 2009 report Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology,

“Even knowledgeable experts have expressed difficulty distinguishing among Roco’s last three generations and understanding some of the applications he describes.”

An alternative perspective is given by Jim Tour of Rice University, who divides the nano-universe up into passive nanotechnologies, active nanotechnologies and hybrid nanotechnologies.  This is slightly easier to work with than Roco’s “generations,” and makes sense in terms of what increasing sophistication will lead to.

From both of these perspectives, regulators are currently grappling with passive nanotechnologies—simple engineered nanomaterials that may have novel properties which typically do not change according to what is going on around them .  It is the products of these first generation nanotechnologies that are stretching regulations, but apparently not breaking them. However, active nanotechnologies (and beyond) – the nanotechnologies that are just around the corner – are the ones that I suspect are going to require far more thought as to how nano-stuff is regulated in terms of what it does, rather than what it is.

But what exactly is an “active” nanotechnology?

Recently, Vrishali Subramanian at the Georgia Institute of Technology and colleagues took a stab at describing more fully what “active” nanotechnologies are, and came up a scheme that not only makes a lot of sense, but also helps give a feel for what some of the coming next generation nanotechnologies might look like.

Starting from an analysis of the scientific literature between 1995 and 2008, Subramanian came up with five different types of active nanotechnology.  From a regulatory perspective, these are particular useful because they provide a framework for classifying emerging technologies by what they do, rather than what they are.

The five categories she ended up with are:

Remote actuated active nanostructures: Nanotechnologies whose active principle is remotely activated or sensed. In other words, materials or “devices” that are either nano-scale or nano-structured, that change what they do in response to an external signal—a laser pulse say, or a high frequency radio signal.

Environmentally responsive active nanostructures: Nanotechnologies that are sensitive to stimuli like pH, temperature, light, oxidation–reduction, certain chemicals etc.  These are nanomaterials and devices that change what they do according to the environment they find themselves in.  Subramarian gives examples of smart drugs, molecular motors and other devices that respond to changes in their local environment with physical actions.

Miniaturized active nanostructures: Nanotechnologies which are a conceptual scaling down of larger devices and technologies to the nanoscale. This category captures the relatively conventional technologies (including semiconductor electronics and Micro Electrical Mechanical Systems or MEMS – lab-on-a-chip technologies) and how nanotechnology is enabling their construction on an ever-smaller scale.  It also includes the synthesis of new molecules that are designed for a specific purpose—essentially engineering chemistry at the nanoscale.

Hybrid active nanostructures: Nanotechnologies that involve uncommon combinations (biotic–abiotic, organic–inorganic) of materials. These include the fusion of living and non-living systems (biotic-abiotic hybrids) and the interfacing of semiconductors with organic materials.  The resulting technologies not only lead to functional nanoscale devices; they also blur the boundary between biological and non-biological systems.

Transforming active nanostructures: Products of nanotechnology that change irreversibly during some stage of their use or life. These are nanomaterials that undergo a significant change in what they do, and thus might appear as different materials or products, depending on when they are assessed.  Subramanian gives the example of self-healing materials that may undergo a one-off transformation when damaged.

This framework for thinking about emerging nanotechnologies still doesn’t shed too much light on the precise nature of the products regulators are going to be faced with over the coming 5, 10 or 20 years.  But it does underline the shift from nanotechnology products that can be squeezed into an intrinsic properties-based regulatory framework, to those that will almost definitely demand a new way of thinking about potential risks, and how to manage them.

And this brings me back to the question that is central to regulating emerging nanotechnologies effectively – “what is different about nanotech?”  From a risk perspective, there will undoubtedly be new and novel nanotechnologies that do not present unusual regulatory challenges, and it will be important not to fall into the trap of assuming new means different by default.  On the other hand, it does seem that increasingly sophisticated nanotechnologies are going to present a major challenge to regulations that are built on assessing and managing risk associated with what they are made of, rather than what they do.

In the post-chemistry world of nanotechnology, this is a challenge that isn’t going to go away.

End Notes

These notes were prepared for a short talk at the launch of a new report on transatlantic regulation cooperation and nanotechnology, prepared by the London School of Economics, Chatham House, the Environmental Law Institute and the project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.  They are something of a work in progress!

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic properties is a useful one I feel for tackling emerging nanotechnologies and potential risks.  But the distinctions probably aren’t as black and white as I infer above – either in terms of the materials and products themselves, or the regulations that are and will be used to ensure their safe use.  Likewise, I suspect that there will be some overlap between the five categories of active nanotechnologies (or more accurately, nanostructures) identified by Subramanian.

Some existing regulations do focus on what a product does, rather than what it is—regulations applying to pharmaceuticals in particular would apply here.  But many of these regulations still come down to characterizing and assessing the product in question in terms of its chemical identity.

Many regulators think that existing regulations are sufficiently robust to cover first generation nanotechnologies.  Not everyone agrees with this perspective though.

And finally, there are moves to work out how to interpret regulations so they are responsive to physical form as well as chemistry – in the US, Europe and elsewhere.  Whether these will simply enable regulations to address first generation nanotechnologies effectively, or whether they will extend to emerging technologies, remains to be seen.

Initial reflections on the new Royal Society report “Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty”

After many months’ hard work, the Royal Society’s much-anticipated report on geoengineering was published today.  Aimed at presenting “an independent scientific review of the range of methods proposed [for geoengineering the climate] with the aim of providing an objective view on whether geoengineering could, and should, play a role in addressing climate change, and under what conditions,”  it provides what is perhaps the most authoritative and comprehensive assessment of the options to date…

I suspect that, like most climate change-related reports these days, “Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty” will have ideologues on both sides of the aisle up in arms.  It dares to consider the option of actively engineering the climate on a planetary scale to curb the impacts of global warming, and advocates further research into geoengineering.  In doing so, it will no doubt simultaneously enrage deniers of anthropogenic climate change, and those who fervently maintain that technological fixes are not the solution to the consequences of humanity’s excesses.

Yet for anyone mature enough to consider the merits of evidence-based and socially-responsive decision-making, the report offers a clear and insightful perspective.

From the outset, the report presents geoengineering as a far from ideal but perhaps necessary option to curbing global warming.  In the foreword, Lord Rees – President of the Royal Society – stresses that “nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”  Even more strongly, the top headline message of the report states

“The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.  No geoengineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change.”

Yet, as the report’s authors point out, neither can we afford to be complacent in assuming that global emissions of greenhouse gases will be curbed sufficiently to avoid widespread economic, social and political impacts over the coming decades.  In the event that active interventions are needed, the report’s subtext is clear: we will need to face the scientific, social and political challenges up-front, openly and honestly if we are to have a hope of making smart decisions.

By taking a balanced and systematic approach, the report establishes a strong technical and social framework for assessing geoengineering options.  On a scientific and technical level, two classes of geoengineering approaches are identified: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques, and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) techniques.  Each class is addressed separately in the report.  Within these two classes, nine plausible geoengineering “solutions” are explored and assessed: biochar, enhanced weathering, carbon dioxide air capture, ocean fertilization, surface albedo alterations (urban and desert), cloud albedo modification, stratospheric aerosols and space reflectors.  These are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety.

The report summarizes the assessment of each solution in a useful graphical representation (shown below), which also includes three additional technologies not discussed extensively in the text (afforestation, carbon capture and storage at source – CCS – and bioenergy with carbon storage, or BECS).

Preliminary overall evaluation of geoengineering techniques, from the Royal Society report Geoengineering the Climate, Sept 1 2009

While the numbers assigned to effectiveness, affordability, safety and timeliness are somewhat qualitative (hence the error bars – which merely denote large uncertainties), this representation gives a sense of which geoengineering approaches might be the more promising ones.  In crude terms, the ideal method would be represented by a large green circle to the upper right of the chart.  Under these criteria, using stratospheric aerosols to scatter sunlight away from the earth comes closest to the ideal.

Interestingly, the recently-publicized approach of painting roofs white (and other urban surface albedo raising ideas) doesn’t fare too well in this assessment. Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low  against all four criteria.  However, while this visualization may be useful for getting a feel for the pros and cons of different geoengineering options, the report cautions that diagrams like this are “no more than preliminary and approximate and should be treated as no more than a preliminary and somewhat illustrative attempt at visualising the results of the sort of multi-criterion evaluation that is needed” to make sense of complex and uncertain geoengineering options.

Beyond the technical options for geoengineering, a substantial portion of the report is dedicated to addressing societal issues.  Chapter 4 establishes a discussion framework that includes governance of geoengineering in the light of risk and uncertainty, ethical issues, oversight of research and development, public and civil society engagement, and economic factors.  These issues are approached with seriousness and respect, and exert a strong influence over the report’s subsequent recommendations.  It is telling that the report’s authors acknowledge that

“The greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be the social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance, rather than scientific and technical issues.”

The report winds up with seventeen recommendations, ranging from the development and deployment of specific geoengineering solutions, to global governance and public engagement.  These should be read and digested in their entirety by anyone interested in geoengineering, in the context of the full report, and so I’m not going to regurgitate them here wholesale.  But I did want to highlight a few of the recommendations that I suspect will strike a particular chord with proponents and opponents of geoengineering, and anyone in the business of making tough decisions on the best way forward.  They also give a good feel for the tone and emphasis of the report:

1.1 Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change and, in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions of at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and more thereafter.  Nothing now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts. [emphasis added]

1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering methods such as biochar and ocean fertilisation should not be formally accepted as methods for addressing climate change under the UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until their effectiveness, carbon residence time and impacts have been determined and found to be acceptable.

3.1 Geoengineering methods are not a substitute for climate change mitigation, and should only be considered as part of a wider package of options for addressing climate change.  CDR methods should be regarded as preferable to SRM methods as a way to augment continuing mitigation action in the long term.  However, SRM methods may provide a potentially useful short-term backup to mitigation in case rapid reductions in global temperatures are needed.

5. The Royal Society, in collaboration with other appropriate bodies, should initiate a process of dialogue and engagement to explore public and civil society attitudes, concerns and uncertainties about geoengineering as a response to climate change.  This should be designed so as to a) Clarify the impact that discussions of the possible implementation of geoengineering may have on general attitudes to climate change, adaption and mitigation; b) Capture information on the importance of various factors affecting public attitudes, including: novelty/familiarity, scale of application and effect, aesthetics, the actors involved, centralization of control, contained versus dispersed methods and impacts, and the reversibility of effects; c) Provide participants with objective information as to the potential role of geoengineering within the broader context of climate change policies, the difference between CDR and SRM, and their relative risks and benefits.

6.1 The governance challenges posed by geoengineering should be explored in more detail, and policy processes established to resolve them.

7.1 The Royal Society in collaboration with international scientific partners should develop a code of practice for geoengineering research and provide recommendations to the international scientific community for a voluntary research governance framework.  This should provide guidance and transparency for geoengineering research and apply to researchers working in the public, private and commercial sectors.  It should include a) consideration of what types and scales of research require regulation including validation and monitoring; b) the establishment of a de minimis standard for regulation of research’ c) guidance on the evaluation of methods including relevance criteria, and life cycle and carbon/climate accounting.

On a first reading, this is a balanced, sober and authoritative report on the development and deployment of geoengineering options to address climate change.  It clearly lays out the technical approaches available, and provides a robust expert perspective on their relative merits.  But its strength lies in the broader social, ethical and political framework within which it positions these options.

The result is a report that neither promotes or denigrates geoengineering, but takes a long hard look at how to ensure the safest and most effective use of geoengineering, should it become necessary.

It’s too early to say whether this will be a truly seminal report in the history of managing global climate change – although my money is on it having a significant and lasting impact.  But it is certainly a considered and mature report. And it clearly establishes the need to take geoengineering – and all of its social, ethical and political ramifications – seriously.

The question is, are we mature enough to act on it?

Inevitably, time and consequences will tell…

Download the full report: Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty [PDF, 4756 kb]

Related blogs:

Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics?

Geoengineering goes mainstream

Steve Chu’s White Revolution

Geoengineering: Are we grown up enough to handle it?

Geoengineering options: Balancing effectiveness and safety

Update 9/3/09 – the figure above has been updated to reflect a typograpical correction made to the original (the top right effectiveness/affordability tag was incorrect).  Thanks to everyone who pointed the error out – and to the RS for fixing it so fast!

I‘ve just posted a series of five attention-grabbing talks on future technologies from TED (the Technology, Entertainment, Design conferences) over at Mashable, where I contribute the occasional guest blog.  If you are more interested in the transformative power of technology than the latest gizmo from Apple, you might want to check them out.  Speakers include Patti Maes, Christopher deCharms, Aubrey de Grey, Juan Enriquez and, of course, Ray Kurzweil.

One video I got a kick out of but that didn’t quite make the cut is this talk from Joshua Klein.  Watching it, you’ll probably understand why: there’s little mention of future tech… until the very end!

Enjoy

Following up on my last post – Geoengineering the planet with nanotechnology ice-cream? – here’s a short video Zoe Papadopoulou and colleagues put together on The Cloud Project from my visit in June:

Although this was filmed before the finishing touches had been applied to the ice cream van, it give a flavor for how the project is bring artists, scientists and members of the public together to talk about emerging technologies like nanotech and geoengineering.

Many thanks to Zoe for permission to post the clip here.

Photo courtesy Zoe Papadopoulou

Scientists and engineers have their moments. But it they are hard pressed to beat art students when it comes to sheer audacious creativity.

Earlier this year I received an email so intriguing I couldn’t help but follow up on it. The email was from Zoe Papadopoulou, an MA student at the Royal College of Art in London.  It was a request for help with a rather unusual design project she and fellow student Cat Kramer were hatching. Skimming through the message, phrases like “geoengineering,” “ice cream van,” “nanotechnology,” “clouds that taste of ice-cream” peaked my interest.

But then I saw the words “liquid nitrogen,” and I was hooked!

The concept was deceptively simple – use art and design to engage people on nanotechnology and geoengineering in a simple, enjoyable and appealing way. The realization was a little more complex…

The whole idea was sparked off by Professor Richard Jones – author of the Soft Machines blog and former Senior Strategic Advisor for nanotechnology for the UK’s Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). In a talk to students on the Royal College of Art’s Design Interactions course, he introduced them to the emerging field of nanotechnology. Intrigued by the possibilities and potential hurdles here – and especially the need for public engagement – Zoe and Cat set out to use design, art and science to, in their words,

“frame a debate, and create interactions between people and their possible futures.”

The result?  An ambitious plan to retro-fit a 1980 Sherpa ice cream van to create ice-cream flavored clouds, while acting as a focus for stimulating discussions on nanotechnology and geoengineering.

The idea went something like this:

Making ice-cream using liquid nitrogen is a fun and accessible introduction to nanotechnology – the rapid freezing leads to the ice-cream having a nanoscale structure and a super-smooth texture.  Nanometer scale particles also play a role in cloud formation, and in principle it’s possible to induce clouds to come together by injecting engineered nanoparticles into the atmosphere.  So why not combine the two to get ice-cream flavored clouds?  Why not inject a stream of liquid nitrogen and ice-cream mix into the atmosphere as a fine spray, leading to flavored condensation nuclei that will seed ice-cream clouds? And why not build it all into an old ice-cream van – a mobile fun-flavored cloud machine?

As you might imagine, the gap between technology concept and realization was rather large in this case.  It’ll be a while before you’ll see (taste?) strawberry-clouds over the English countryside – although the van is fully equipped to demonstrate how the cloud machine could work.

But this wasn’t the point of the exercise.  What Zoe and Cat were trying to achieve was using art and design to draw people into conversations about emerging technologies.

And in this they succeeded brilliantly.

My role in all of this – apart from making the odd encouraging noise – was to help out at a trial-run of the van back in June.

Part of the concept here was to use the van as a platform for experts to engage with real people on nanotechnology and geoengineering.  I’m told the idea was to get experts and members of the public talking to each other in an accessible, fun, non-threatening environment.  Fun and non-threatening for the public maybe – I’m not so sure the experts felt that way about it! But then maybe this was part of the process of breaking down barriers between people that know about emerging technologies like nanotech, and those that want to know more.

Actually, I had a blast with the van. Talking about the project, nanotechnology and geoengineering with Zoe’s friends and neighbors, I was fascinated by how easily the conversations flowed amidst demonstrations of the van’s cloud generators and roof-mounted industrial-strength water spray. With the van as a backdrop (and it really is an impressive piece of design-work), people started discussing emerging technologies – and what they might mean for them personally – without having to be forced into it.

Engagement is something that is talked about a lot in science and technology circles, but rarely done well.  Yet here were a couple of arts students effortlessly* bridging the gap between emerging technologies and members of the public, using their imagination, design skills and a bit of fun.

For the past week the van has been on display outside the Royal College of Art and has been attracting plenty of attention by all accounts.  Over the coming year it’s scheduled to make a number of appearances around the country – exactly where and when (and with whom) will be posted on the Cloud Project website (where you can also find out more about the project).

If you get the chance, I’d encourage you to visit it.  It’s a lot of fun.  But it also demonstrates the importance of using art and design together with other skills in bridging the gap between new technologies coming over the horizon, and people who they are potentially going to affect.

And geoengineering the planet with nanotech ice-cream?  I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon.  But it’s certainly something to think about as you munch on your ’99 this summer.**

End Notes

For more information on the Cloud Project, check out the project website.

Read more about the Royal College of Art Design Interactions course here.

*Actually, as Zoe and Cat will tell you, this project was far from effortless when it came to refurbishing the Sherpa van.  This took a tremendous amount of effort over the past several months – but the results are impressive!

**For non-Brits, the ’99 is the peak of British gourmet ice-cream – a whirl of soft-whip with a length of flaky chocolate stuck in it.  Delicious

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/07/05/geoengineering-the-plane-with-nanotechnology-icecream/feed/ 4 http://2020science.org/2009/07/02/nanotechnology-twit-tv/ http://2020science.org/2009/07/02/nanotechnology-twit-tv/#comments Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:47:49 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1866

Just a quick post (at least, as far as the text goes). Last week, I had the pleasure of appearing on Twit TV’s Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour with Kristen Sanford and Leo Laporte. The conversation covered nanotechnology from every conceivable angle. I should have known with Leo’s opening question – asking what I thought of Eric Drexler’s ideas – that we were in for a fun ride!

As Kiki and Leo managed to get in a whole bunch of questions about what nanotech is (and isn’t), where and how it’s being used, what’s so great about it, and what some of the possible barriers to it’s development are, I thought it worth posting the show here.

I should warn you, it’s long, running just shy of 70 minutes. The full show can be streamed below. But for anyone who wants to fast forward through the boring bits or watch it at their leisure, it can also be downloaded here. [Quicktime, 199 MB]

The show was recorded by the folks at On Demand Twit Video, and is reproduced here under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Creatives Commons license:

A couple of days ago, @michael_nielsen posted a thoughtful article on his blog tackling rapid and disruptive changes in the scientific publishing business – especially the challenge of overcoming organizational immune systems that actively obstruct change and adaptation. Reading through the piece, I was particularly struck by his conceptualization of the barriers to change faced by established organizations.  He used a neat piece of physics-speak – “local optima” – to describe the inevitable isolation businesses face when the price of change simply becomes too great for them to compete with emerging enterprises.  But what really intrigued me is how, by turning this analogy on its head and talking about potential wells rather than local optima, a new approach to surviving disruptive change could be conceived – innovation tunneling…

Michael uses a comparison between the New York Times and TechCrunch to explain the problem:

A good example is the popular technology blog TechCrunch, by most measures one of the top 100 blogs in the world. Started by Michael Arrington in 2005, TechCrunch has rapidly grown, and now employs a large staff. Part of the reason it’s grown is because TechCrunch’s reporting is some of the best in the technology industry, comparable to, say, the technology reporting in the New York Times. Yet whereas the New York Times is wilting financially, TechCrunch is thriving, because TechCrunch’s operating costs are far lower, per word, than the New York Times. The result is that not only is the audience for technology news moving away from the technology section of newspapers and toward blogs like TechCrunch, the blogs can undercut the newspaper’s advertising rates. This depresses the price of advertising and causes the advertisers to move away from the newspapers.

Unfortunately for the newspapers, there’s little they can do to make themselves cheaper to run. To see why that is, let’s zoom in on just one aspect of newspapers: photography. If you’ve ever been interviewed for a story in the newspaper, chances are a photographer accompanied the reporter. You get interviewed, the photographer takes some snaps, and the photo may or may not show up in the paper. Between the money paid to the photographer and all the other costs, that photo probably costs the newspaper on the order of a thousand dollars. When TechCrunch or a similar blog needs a photo for a post, they’ll use a stock photo, or ask their subject to send them a snap, or whatever. The average cost is probably tens of dollars. Voila! An order of magnitude or more decrease in costs for the photo.

Here’s the kicker. TechCrunch isn’t being any smarter than the newspapers. It’s not as though no-one at the newspapers ever thought “Hey, why don’t we ask interviewees to send us a polaroid, and save some money?” Newspapers employ photographers for an excellent business reason: good quality photography is a distinguishing feature that can help establish a superior newspaper brand. For a high-end paper, it’s probably historically been worth millions of dollars to get stunning, Pulitzer Prizewinning photography. It makes complete business sense to spend a thousand dollars per photo.

What can you do, as a newspaper editor? You could fire your staff photographers. But if you do that, you’ll destroy the morale not just of the photographers, but of all your staff. You’ll stir up the Unions. You’ll give a competitive advantage to your newspaper competitors. And, at the end of the day, you’ll still be paying far more per word for news than TechCrunch, and the quality of your product will be no more competitive.

The problem is that your newspaper has an organizational architecture which is, to use the physicists’ phrase, a local optimum. Relatively small changes to that architecture – like firing your photographers – don’t make your situation better, they make it worse. So you’re stuck gazing over at TechCrunch, who is at an even better local optimum, a local optimum that could not have existed twenty years ago:

Source: Michael Nielsen

Unfortunately for you, there’s no way you can get to that new optimum without attempting passage through a deep and unfriendly valley. The incremental actions needed to get there would be hell on the newspaper. There’s a good chance they’d lead the Board to fire you.

The result is that the newspapers are locked into producing a product that’s of comparable quality (from an advertiser’s point of view) to the top blogs, but at far greater cost. And yet all their decisions – like the decision to spend a lot on photography – are entirely sensible business decisions. Even if they’re smart and good, they’re caught on the horns of a cruel dilemma.

Now, imagine Michael’s plot above turned upside down.  It shows the same dilemma, but now the organizations inhabit wells – analogous to potential wells in physics – and the obstacle to competing in a disruptive market becomes a wall:

If the established organization doesn’t have the resources and capability to overcome this barrier, it will be outstripped by the new kid on the block.  As Michael describes above, small or incremental changes within the organization just push it further up the barrier – things get worse rather than better initially, and the question then becomes how much bad stuff can be sustained until the barrier has been climbed and the new, more competitive state is reached.

That’s assuming that the barrier is impenetrable.  But what if it could be penetrated, or tunneled through?

Turning back to physics analogies, classical physics dictates that anything in the left well would need sufficient energy to overcome the barrier in order to get over the barrier and slide into the right well.  Not enough energy – no movement.  But quantum physics throws a wrench in the classical works.   Accepting some rather general hand waving, quantum physics says that something stuck in the left hand well has a small but finite probability of appearing in the right hand well – not by getting over the barrier, but by tunneling through it; an phenomenon know as quantum tunneling.  in other words, a classically impenetrable barrier is, in fact, penetrable.

Now back to Michael’s example.  Imagine that innovation is the key to overcoming the barrier between the spaces occupied by The New York Times and TechCrunch.  The greater an organization’s ability to innovate, the more likely it is to classically hop over the barrier and into the adjacent well.  In times of rapid and disruptive change, this will be a tall order for many organizations.  But what if something like the innovation equivalent of quantum tunneling can take place – innovation tunneling?

I’m not sure how far this analogy can and should be pushed, but it’s interesting to play around with.  What if innovations exist which enable established organizations to shift to a new mode of operation in the face of disruption that don’t involve taking the classical route?  If they do, what would they be like, how could they be spotted and nurtured, and what would an organization look like that was able to take advantage of them?

All this seems rather hypothetical – unless this is an old phenomenon that I have simply given a new name to (highly probable given my naivety here).  I’ve no idea whether this distinction between classical and non-classical innovation make sense on the ground.  And I haven’t any concrete evidence for innovation tunneling.  But it does strike me that if the local optimum/potential well model is right, it’s at least worth thinking about the possibility of innovation tunneling as a way of remaining competitive and riding the wave of disruptive change.

In his essay, Nielsen concludes

“it’s also clear that there are enormous opportunities to innovate, for those willing to master new technologies, and to experiment boldly with new ways of doing things. The result will be a great wave of innovation that changes not just how scientific discoveries are communicated, but also accelerates the way scientific discoveries are made.”

This has, in all honesty, been little more than an imaginative distraction on a slow afternoon, and doesn’t carry much weight intellectually.  But what if  innovation tunneling is one key to unlocking these opportunities for established organizations?   Given the barriers Michael’s “organizational immune systems” present to surviving and adapting in a rapidly changing world, it’s probably worth the trouble to find out.

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/07/01/innovation-tunneling/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2009/06/26/confluence-where-communication-coupling-and-control-collide/ http://2020science.org/2009/06/26/confluence-where-communication-coupling-and-control-collide/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:20:44 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1824

Part 7 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Yesterday, I listened to respected economists discussing geoengineering; gave a Skype interview on nanotechnology from the comfort of my own home; and watched as reactions to Michael Jackson’s death spread through virtual web-based communities.  Twenty years ago, when Jackson was at the height of his artistic powers, such a day would have been the stuff of science fiction.  Now, it’s just business and usual.

Looking back over the past two decades, it’s easy to see how Coupling, Communication and Control have changed the world we live in.  The impact of CFC’s on the ozone layer, the looming global warming crisis and the associated acidification of oceans are all testaments to how recent human actions are increasingly coupled to global environmental re-actions.  Technological advances built on the back of our increasing control over matter – whether living or non-living – have led to profound changes in what we can achieve as a species.  And the global communications revolution – from the rise of the internet to the emergence of social media – continues to bend previously rigid social, commercial and geographical boundaries.

Yet important as the changes associated with each of these individual “C’s” are, it is at their intersection that their true transformative nature is revealed.  This is where ideas and influences spark off each other, leading to transformative leaps in innovation and impact…

To some extent we’re seeing this already.  Modern global communications wouldn’t be possible without a whole raft of technological breakthroughs.  Our impact on the environment is driven as much by our technologies and associated resource demands as by a growing world population, while solutions to the resulting consequences are technology-driven more often than not.  And worldwide responses to global issues are being facilitated by increasingly sophisticated communications media.

As the overlap and integration between each of the three “C’s” grows, the rate of innovation is likely to accelerate.  Yet the place where the really transformative stuff will occur is going to be at the center – at the confluence of advances in Coupling, Communication and Control.  This is where we can expect game-changing innovations that make the impossible possible.  It’s also where we are likley to see new technologies and ideas emerge that are potentially beyond our collective ability to handle with any degree of maturity.

And this brings us to the key science and technology-driven challenge we face as we head further into the twenty first century:  How are we going to handle the powerful and transformative new opportunities and dangers arising from this confluence of coupling, communication and control, without messing things up?

In contrast to the rapid developments likely at this nexus of the three “C’s,” the inertia inherent in established institutions and ideas will resist change.  And so unlike some, I don’t think we will  adapt naturally to the challenges that are coming. Yet the result of ignoring them, assuming they are someone else’s problem, or trying to shoehorn them into outmoded ways of doing business, will most likely be social, economic and political collapse.

The alternative is to take a long hard look at what needs to be done in order to ride the coming wave rather than be engulfed by it.  From twenty years ago, today’s world would look familiar yet different.  Given the current rate of change, I suspect that the world twenty years  from now will be unrecognizable.  If we’re going to cope with the changes that are coming, we will need to learn how to change with them.  And one of the first places to start will be the policies that guide the science and technology that are driving – and will help navigate – this confluence of coupling, communication and control.

Next time: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Nanoscale control: Leveraging biology

Next: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

According to a new public opinion survey from the UK Royal Academy of Engineering, the great British public is cautiously enthusiastic about the emerging field of synthetic biology.

Last summer, the  Washington DC-based Synthetic Biology Project published a survey of US awareness and attitudes towards synbio.  The new  study builds on that work by taking a look what people in the UK make of synthetic biology.  Drawing on a 1000-person strong phone survey and a more in-depth exploratory dialogue with 16 participants, it provides insight into current awareness of synthetic biology, potential public perception speed bumps, and some possible routes toward greater public engagement in the technology’s development.

I’ll probably write about the report in more depth at a later date—some of the recommendations from the dialogue are particularly interesting  as is the process of empowering people to make informed recommendations on an emerging technology such as synthetic biology.  But for now, I’ll limit myself to some initial impressions from reading the report:

The overall impression from reading the report is that people in the UK are cautiously optimistic about the future beneficial development and use of synthetic biology. However, this optimism is tempered by concerns over possible safety issues, unresponsive or inappropriate regulation, and fear-mongering in the media.

It is clear that the participants in the dialogue faced a steep learning curve when it came to synthetic biology, but that with help most of them were able to come up to speed on what the technology entailed, and what the potential implications were.  None of the 16 dialogue group participants had previously heard of synthetic biology.  In the telephone poll, only 33% of respondents had come across the term previously—the same level of awareness was found amongst US respondents the Wilson Center study.  However, after two evenings of learning bout and discussing synthetic biology, a number of participants in the dialogue had a clear grasp of the essence of what synthetic biology is about, what it can potential be used for, and some of the challenges its development raises.  It was noted though that there are next to no good sources of information available that provide a lay audience with clear information on synthetic biology.

Generally, people were excited about the potential applications of synthetic biology. Using re-programmed microbes to produce biofuels and medical drugs were seen as positive applications – with greater emphasis given to biofuels, as an application that had the potential to make a difference to a greater number of people in the near future.  There was less enthusiasm and more concern expressed for applications that would lead to the release of modified microbes into the environment, such as might occur in pollution remediation.

Effective risk management was clearly a concern. Regulation was seen as important for the success of synthetic biology, but only if it didn’t stifle innovation.  Participants generally felt that synthetic biology practiced by amateurs outside the confines and constraints of established organizations—garage biotech—is a bad thing, and should be discouraged.

There was concern that the media could undermine the development of synthetic biology by scaremongering, and that efforts are needed to educate and inform people about the technology – thus allowing informed impressions to be made that weren’t unduly influenced by the media.  This may be a particularly British perspective given the state of science reporting in some UK media outlets.  But I found it interesting that the dialogue participants were sufficiently enamored with synbio that they didn’t want the media to upset the cart here, while at the same time they (presumably) represented the readership that the UK media write for.

There didn’t seem to be much concern over scientists “playing God” and creating new life-forms. In fact—and this I found surprising—there seemed to be some question over whether engineered microbes were actually alive.  Treating modified or new microbes as non-living commodities conveniently circumvents a number of ethical issues here.  But I wonder whether this attitude will persist as synthetic biology develops.  And if it does, I can’t help wondering whether this raises ethical issues in and of itself.  In contrast to microbes, there seemed to be a consensus that tinkering with “higher” life forms was questionable.

There seemed to be strong support for the UK government investing in synthetic biology—along with some bemusement that Britain was already ahead of most other countries in the field.

Overall, these results should be seen as good news for synthetic biology.  They suggest the opportunity exists for strong partnerships between members of the public and scientists, government and businesses in developing the field and translating it into useful applications.  But there is also an underlying note of caution—get things wrong, and synthetic biology could become another genetically modified organisms fiasco—or worse.

The hope is that scientists, government and business learn from past mistakes, and work with regular people to develop synthetic biology in an acceptable, relevant and responsible way.  This report is a great initial step toward doing this.  It’ll be interesting to see what comes next.

This month’s issue of the magazine Science & Technology takes a closer look at some of the controversies, dilemmas and decisions that will impact on the future development of the science and technology of working at the nanoscale.  Amongst the commentaries is a short piece I wrote about the importance of safety in underpinning successful and beneficial nano-enabled technologies:

Science & Technology, June 2009, Page 66

Over the past few years, scientists and engineers have made huge strides in their ability to manipulate materials at the nanometer scale.  Tapping into novel properties that emerge when substances are engineered at the nanoscale, they have begun to push conventional technologies further than was previously thought possible.  And with this new-found dexterity, they are beginning to develop innovative new technologies that were unimaginable not so long ago.  The result is a rapidly emerging toolkit of scientific knowledge and technical expertise that could have profound economic and social impacts around the world; creating jobs and wealth while addressing challenges that range from disease treatment and prevention to renewable energy and clean water.

As with any new technology, however, the promise of nanotechnology comes at a price. When materials are engineered at the scale of atoms and molecules they can behave in unconventional ways—in effect, the rules that apply to non-nanoscale materials begin to break down.  This is what makes the technology so powerful.  But it raises the possibility of products that can also cause harm in unconventional ways, which may not be captured by the usual approaches to dealing with human health and environmental risks.  Unless these unconventional risks are understood and addressed, the future of nanotechnology could be dogged by uncertainties over safety and dwindling public trust.

Not every product of nanotechnology will present unconventional risks.  But if a nanoscale substance can get to places in the body or the environment that are normally inaccessible, and is able to elicit a response following exposure that is influenced by shape and form at nanometer dimensions, new questions need to be asked on how harmful the substance is and how it can be used safely.  Five years ago, these concerns were raised by the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.  Since then, numerous reports have reiterated and expanded on the challenges being faced to developing safe nanotechnologies.  Sadly, there has been substantially more talk than action.

Fortunately, there have been no documented cases of harm arising from exposure to engineered nanomaterials.  But an increasing body of research indicates that some of these materials are potentially harmful if used without due care.  Yet information is still lacking on what constitutes “due care” in many cases—especially with highly novel substances such as carbon nanotubes.  And while global research into the potential health impacts of engineered nanomaterials is increasing, it still falls far short of what is needed to underpin evidence-based decision-making.

Recently, the US National Academies of Science called for a national research strategy for nanotechnology risk research, drawing on the expertise and perspective of multiple stakeholders.  Coupled with adequate funding, such an approach could help bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers in developing safe nanotechnologies. Yet at the end of the day, even the best risk research strategies will not be of much use if the end users are suspicious of nanotechnology.

Experiences with genetically modified organisms have demonstrated the power of public opinion in determining whether a new technology succeeds or not.  And while the similarities between nanotechnology and GMOs may be slim, it is clear that in today’s hyper-connected world, consumers have an increasingly strong voice.  As a result, it is not sufficient to ensure the safety of nanotechnology-based products; public trust in the technology and the ability of government and industry to manage it safely must also be nurtured.

In many ways nanotechnology is a test-case for other emerging technologies.  Countries and economies around the world are increasingly dependent on technology innovation.  Yet the rules governing success are changing; driven by rapidly evolving global communications, ever-more pressing social and economic challenges, and an increasingly complex knowledge-base.  Proactive risk research and public engagement are key not navigating through this changing landscape.  Get them wrong and we face lost opportunities.  But get them right and there is a chance that nanotechnology—and other emerging technologies—will deliver what they promise.

Originally published in Science & Technology Issue 3, June 2009, pp 66-67

Download the original article [PDF, 312 KB]

If there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to unite global warming “denialists” on both sides of the aisle, it’s geoengineering – the intentional planet-wide manipulation of the environment.  At least, you might be left with that impression after reading the comments following a thoughtful piece in Monday’s Wall Street Journal by Jamais Cascio.

It’s Time to Cool the Planet. Wall Street Journal. Credit: Viktor Koen

Cascio describes himself as a “reluctant advocate” of geoengineering.

“Many of us who have been watching this subject closely have gone from being skeptics to advocates. Very reluctant advocates, to be sure, but advocates nonetheless.”

Fraught with uncertainty and risk as geoengineering is, he argues that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will not be sufficient in the short term to curb the impacts of global warming.  Rather, direct intervention is necessary to give us a bit of breathing space.

Interestingly, he does not advocate geoengineering as a technical fix to a manmade problem.  He goes to great pains to stress that he believes reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the only long-term solution to the impact of human activities on climate change.  But geoengineering could give us more time to come up with workable solutions to achieving this.

“What geoengineering can do is slow the increase in temperatures, delay potentially catastrophic “tipping point” events—such as a disastrous melting of the Arctic permafrost—and give us time to make the changes to our economies and our societies necessary to end the climate disaster.

“Geoengineering, in other words, is simply a temporary “stay of execution.” We will still have to work for a pardon.”

Cascio also does not shy away from the potential risks as well as the social and political challenges associated with such direct action.

“Any kind of geoengineering would also face other issues. Most prominent are the political concerns. Since geoengineering is global in its effects, who determines whether or not it’s used, which technologies to deploy, and what the target temperatures will be? Who decides which unexpected side effects are bad enough to warrant ending the process? Because the expense and expertise required would be low enough for a single country, what happens when a desperate “rogue nation” attempts geoengineering against the wishes of other states? And because the benefits and possible harm from geoengineering attempts would be unevenly distributed around the planet, would it be possible to use this technology for strategic or military purposes? That last one may sound a bit paranoid, but it’s clear that any technology with the potential for strategic use will be at the very least considered by any rational international actor.

“There are also more mundane questions of liability. If, for example, South Asia experiences an unusual drought during cyclone season after geoengineering begins, who gets blamed? Who gets sued? Would all “odd” weather patterns be ascribed to the geoengineering effort? If so, would the issue of what would have happened absent geoengineering be considered relevant?”

Yet at the end of the day, he believes that, despite the very real problems associated with taking direct action, the alternatives are worse.

This is a finely written piece, and well worth reading.  It lays out the pros and cons of geoengineering in a carefully reasoned way.  It doesn’t contain much science admittedly.  But then I wouldn’t expect it to – it’s an opinion piece, and the supporting science isn’t that hard to track down.

The article also spotlights what I suspect is going to be the biggest challenge to any effective use of geoengineering – getting a disparate bunch of people across social political and geographical boundaries to work together.  I fear that, while we now have the beginnings of technologies to tackle global problems, our mindset remains too parochial to implement them wisely.  Constrained by outmoded ways of thinking and acting, we are simply too immature as a species to make good decisions on a global scale.

The answer is deceptively simple – we need to grow up.  This won’t be easy.  I’m not even sure it is possible – which doesn’t bode well for humanity.  But if we don’t find ways of making wise decisions on technology uses that potentially affect everyone, things are going to get messy.

Perhaps climate change and the threat/lure of geoengineering are the jolt we need to find innovative ways of working toegther that transcend conventional boundaries and blinkered perspectives.  I don’t know.

I do know though that progress won’t happen without innovative thinking, open dialogue and a little humility on all sides.  Jamais Cascio’s piece offers the hope that these challenges, although complex, are not beyond our reach; if only we can tackle them with the maturity they demand.

Sadly, the comments on the Wall Street Journal piece suggest we still have a lot of growing up to do.

Part 6 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

The story so far: We are facing an unprecedented confluence of three factors that are forcing us to rethink how we develop and use science and technology to the benefit of society.  Coupling between our action’s and the Earth’s re-actions is more significant now than at any previous point in human history. Global Communications are dissolving previously rigid boundaries throughout society at a seemingly ever-increasing rate.  And then there’s the third “C” – Control…

Not to put too fine a point on it, control is what science and technology are ultimately about.  Science provides the tools for understanding how the world works; technology puts them to use.  This is how it’s been for the past 10,000 years.  So what’s different now?  The answer is that we are finally getting down to being able to manipulate the basic building blocks of matter – atoms and molecules.  Over the past 50 years we have made tremendous strides in being able to visualize and engineer materials at near-atomic scales.  And by doing so we have opened the door to a vast array of technological advances that were the stuff of dreams just a few decades ago.

In the previous post in this series, I wrote about three defining features of nanoscale control – smallness, strangeness and sophistication.  Here, I want to dwell a little more on the third of those – sophistication – as it is likely to underpin some of the more radical advances in science and technology over the next few years.

Three defining characteristics of controlling matter at the nanoscale

Over the past century, synthetic chemistry has changed the world.  The ability to systematically combine atoms together to make new molecules has revolutionized the way we live – virtually everything we touch depends on synthesized chemicals in some way.  Yet chemists are the first to admit that the number of chemicals that have so far been synthesized is minuscule compared to those just waiting to be discovered and made – although we appear to have had good control over the world of chemicals, we’ve only scratched the surface.

What if we had the tools to splice atoms and molecules together in new and innovative ways?  What if we could go beyond text-book chemistry, and invent new molecules that behaved more like nanoscale machines?  What if we could create systems of molecules that could self-replicate – just like biological systems, only better?  All of these goals are coming within reach as scientists learn how to build new molecules atom by atom.

"Nano car" synthetic molecules, from the lab of Professor Jim Tour at Rice University

A particularly interesting example – more a proof of concept – comes from Professor Jim Tour’s lab at Rice University.  Jim was interested in how some biological molecules carry out very physical tasks – like ferrying molecules from one place to another – and wondered whether totally artificial molecules could be invented that behaved in similar ways.  The result was a molecule dubbed the nano car.  Completely artificial, it consists of four “wheels” made of carbon-60 molecules, attached together with a chassis of  organic molecules.  What is significant is that the nano cars demonstrate thermally-induced directional motion on a surface – i.e. they are able in principle to ferry a payload of other molecules from point A to point B.  Writing in Nanotechnology Law and Business in 2007, Tour noted:

The achievement with the nanocar was significant because it demonstrated for the first time structurally controlled directional movement on a surface due to rolling of the wheels rather than the common non-directional stick-slip motion of molecules on a substrate surface.  The next goal of our project was to construct a nanomachine that can convert energy-inputs into controlled motion on a surface.

The nano car attempts to achieve something that occurs all the time in nature by painstakingly controlling how the various molecules that make it up are pieced together.  But the example begs a question – if we can begin to replicate what living systems – DNA-based systems – do, through nanoscale control, how much more could be achieved by starting with DNA in the first place? The answer is – rather a lot.

One of the more interesting discoveries in biochemistry over the past several years has been that many molecules in living systems do their stuff on a physical as much as a chemical level.  For instance, while the nano cars could potentially move molecules around on a surface, naturally occurring biological molecules exist that do this every day – nature has already evolved incredibly sophisticated systems that operate at the nanoscale.  Knowing that natural “molecular motors” exist, scientists have been working hard to create their own biologically-based and biology-inspired motors.

Cartoon of an autonomous molecular motor, courtesy of Andrew Tuberfield.

One such motor is an autonomous “walker” designed and constructed by Andrew Tuberfield’s group at the University of Oxford.  The molecule – which is DNA based – is designed to walk along a track constructed from DNA for as long as there is a supply of fuel – provided by a second set of engineered molecules.  The idea is similar to that embodied in the nano car – an engineered molecule that mimics some of the features of living systems.  But in this case the building blocks used – DNA-based molecules – allow a far more sophisticated device to be constructed.  The walker consists of two asymmetric feet attached to a DNA track.  Through random thermal motion, these feet are constantly lifting up from the track.  However, because of the asymmetry of the molecule, the left foot is uniquely exposed to the surrounding environment when it becomes elevated.  at this point, the researchers who designed the system engineered in two rather clever features.  First, a purposely designed molecule – H1 in the diagram – attaches to the left foot and removes it from the track as the foot extents.  The same cannot happen to the right foot because it is not accessible.  Then, a second molecule – H2 – attaches to the H1-foot pair and removes the original H1 molecule, leaving just an unattached foot.  At this point, one of two things can happen; the foot either attaches to the left.  Or it re-attaches to the right.  The probability of either happening is random.  But as re-attaching to the left results in the molecule ending up exactly where it started, only re-attachment to the right ends up in the molecule taking a step – and the step is always in the same direction.

By using engineered biological parts and controlling their construction at the nanoscale, the researchers have created a molecule that can move along a predetermined track in a predetermined direction, for as long as track and fuel exist – a Brownian ratchet that converts random motion into directional movement.  It may not seem a lot, but it is a tremendous step towards building nanoscale systems that begin to match what biology already does.

But this research raises a yet more intriguing question:  If we can use biological parts to make non-biological motors through nanoscale engineering, can we get into the very workings of biology itself? Biology, after all, is built on nanoscale processes – from DNA to the proteins it encodes for.  If we could control biology at the atomic and molecular level (and do it well), it would quite possibly one of the most transformative technological moves since the advent of agriculture.

Thirty years ago, the notion of controlling the code of life itself would have been laughable.  Now it seems within reach.

The plummeting time to sequence the human genome

Over the past few years, the ease with which genetic code can be sequenced has plummeted.  It took 13 years for teams of scientists around the globe to first read the human genome – completing the project in 2001.  In 2007, it took 2 months to sequence the genome of DNA-co-discoverer James Watson.  And by 2013 it is likely that your personal genome could be read in the time it takes to boil an egg.

Of course, sequencing just reads the information – it doesn’t tell you how to use it.  But here’s the important thing – sequencing genomes transforms the information from the physical domain to the digital domain, where it can be experimented with and engineered in new ways.  While restricted to the physical world, there were always going to be limitations to how effectively we manipulated and controlled genetic material.  In the digital domain, those limitations are gone.  Cheap affordable sequencing is ushering in the age of digital biology.

Schematic of the "digitization" of biology

However, playing around with genetic information on computers would be little more than a novelty if it weren’t for one further advance – the plummeting cost of DNA synthesis.  This completes the loop between the physical and digital worlds.  Now, once you have uploaded your genome into the computer and digitally enhanced it, the technology exists – or soon will – to download the new genome back into reality.  It’s a technology that promises to enable an incredibly sophisticated level of genetic engineering.  It allows brand new genetic code to be written on the computer, tested out in virtual space, then downloaded back into an organism.  It even allows brand new organisms to be designed and created from scratch.

This possibility was pushed home last year when Craig Venter’s team synthesized the genome of a bacterium – Mycobacterium genitalium – from scratch.  The team has yet to insert the synthesized DNA into a cell, and thus achieve – in effect – the creation of life form laboratory chemicals.  But it seems only a matter of time before this is achieved.

January 2008 - Craig Venter's team synthesize the complete genome of a new organism from scratch

We’re not quite there yet with the technology that will allow us to manipulate biology at the nanoscale.  But it’s coming.  And when it does, the level of control we have had over matter for the past ten centuries will seem like child’s play.

Throw this level of potential control into the mix with the other two “C’s,” and you have all the ingredients for a step-change in what we can do, and what the consequences are – for good and for bad.

Next time: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Control at the nanoscale: Smallness, strangeness and sophistication.

Next: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide.

So you’re looking for a new technology concept—something that will stimulate research funding, make a buck or two, and maybe save the world—at least for another year or so.  What do you need?

Here’s a quick checklist:

1. Something that’s revolutionary. Evolutionary change doesn’t hack it these days I’m afraid—your new technology needs to make a distinct break from the past—or at least, look as if it does.
2. Hype—and lots of it. A vision for how your technology will transform the world over the next ten to fifty years.  If you can argue that civilization will collapse without the new tech, so much the better.
3. A focus on interdisciplinary research. Stove-piped technologies are so last century.  To be hip and relevant in the 21st century, you need to be interdisciplinary.  Fusions of two disciplines are good—more are better though.  And if you can throw in a social science or two, better still.
4. Inter-agency collaboration. You know you are on to a winner when one government agency alone can’t cope with your idea.
5. An education crisis.  As a rule of thumb, your new technology should be so out of the box that a whole new approach to education is needed to develop and sustain it.
6. Heartfelt concern for the possible downsides of the technology. Safe technologies aren’t sexy.  Period.  Actually, that’s not true, but there is an implicit assumption that any bold new technology concept will have a dark side—acknowledging this and working out how to handle it early on is de rigueur for the budding technology entrepreneur.
7. An intent to engage “the public.” Breathe easy—current evidence suggests that you don’t actually need to talk to “the public,” just act as if you want to.  Of course, this approach may end up backfiring if you don’t move on to your next big idea fast enough.

OK so it’s a rather tongue in cheek list, but it does bear more than a passing resemblance to where nanotechnology—that doyenne of emerging technologies—was ten years ago.  And it now seems to match up pretty well with the new emerging tech kid on the block: synthetic biology…

A couple of weeks ago, the UK Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) released a new report on the “scope, applications and implications” of synthetic biology.  Reading through it, I couldn’t help experience a sense of déjà vu—the storyline is remarkably similar to how nanotechnology was being pitched at the end of the 1990’s (see for instance Vision for Nanotechnology R&D in the Next Decade from the Inter-agency Working Group on Nanotechnology—the precursor to the US National Nanotechnology Initiative. [PDF, 9.9 MB])  In fact reading it, I had the spine-tingling sense that I was looking at nanotechnology’s political successor here.  It wasn’t so much the absence of any substantive references to nanotechnology—in spite of the rather significant lessons learned from the development of this technology over the past ten years—as the way in which the new technology was being pitched.

Holding the RAE report up to the New Technology Concept checklist, this is what you have:

Something that’s revolutionary. Check. “Synthetic biology could revolutionise a number of fields of engineering.”

Hype. Check. “Many commentators now believe that synthetic biology has the potential for major wealth generation by means of the development of major new industries, much as, for example the semi-conductor did in the last century, coupled to positive effects for health and the environment.”

A focus on interdisciplinary research. Check. “The coming together of engineering and biology that typifies synthetic biology means that it is, by nature, a multidisciplinary field of endeavour. Fundamental research requires collaboration between engineers, biologists, chemists and physicists, as well as social scientists and philosophers.”

Inter-agency collaboration. Check. “The elements set out above cut across several Government departments. A strategy would enable appropriate policies to be put in place that acknowledged their interdependency.”

An education crisis. Check. “The main challenge to providing training in synthetic biology is that its interdisciplinary nature does not fit naturally into the traditional university structure or the standard funding mechanisms.”

Heartfelt concern for the possible downsides of the technology. Check. “The development of synthetic biology brings with it a number of ethical and societal implications that must be identified and addressed.

An intent to engage “the public.” Check. “As well as an academic exploration of these issues by social scientists, ethicists and philosophers, early public dialogue is of the utmost importance to help promote listening and understanding of people’s hopes, expectations and concerns”

The RAE report actually has a lot to commend it.  It provides a good account of what synthetic biology is all about.  It makes the case reasonably well for greater UK investment in the technology.  It even manages to outline many of the more prominent social and ethical concerns.

Yet I can’t help feeling that the report is naively outdated.  Over the past ten years, we’ve learnt a lot about what works and what doesn’t when boosting a new technology.  Nanotechnology was (still is) a technology concept grounded in science, but with a fair chunk of policy associated with it—a grand scheme to raise research dollars, create jobs and improve quality of life for people around the world.  On balance it’s been a success so far, but with a steep learning curve that isn’t threatening to level out anytime soon.

Synthetic biology is also being pitched as a science-based grand scheme to raise research dollars, create jobs and improve quality of life for people around the world. This is fine—synthetic biology as a concept is pretty solid.  But if the RAE report is to be believed, it is being promoted using an old and outdated model.  Ten years ago, it might have looked fresh—now it just looks uninformed.  For some reason, the lessons we are still learning with nanotechnology don’t seem to be translating across to synbio too well.  Maybe it’s because of a genuine lack of awareness.  Perhaps it’s intentional—with synthetic biology being seen as a competitive successor to nanotechnology.  I don’t know.  Either way, it doesn’t bode too well for the future of the synthetic biology enterprise.

The science and technology embedded in synthetic biology are important.  But the hurdles the new technology faces to underpinning safe, successful and accepted innovations are substantial.  Re-inventing old problems won’t help here.  But leaning from similar experiences with other emerging technologies just might.

Rather than trying to roll nanotechnology out of its spot, perhaps its time for synthetic biology to do a bit of cozying up instead.  There are, after all, more than enough problems needing technology-based solutions to go around.  And I strongly suspect that, in this case, two metaphorical heads will be better than one in tackling them.

Part 5 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Last time in this series of occasional blogs, I made the rather bold statement that while science and technology are going to have a highly visible impact on our lives over the next few decades, progress is going to be underpinned in most cases by our increasing control over materials at the invisible nanoscale. It isn’t exactly intuitive why this should be the case though—how on earth can engineering matter on a scale a billion time smaller than the average person be so important?

In trying to answer this question, I want to take a rather unconventional approach and explore three advantages of working at this scale: Smallness, strangeness and sophistication.

Smallness. Size matters—it’s something we all understand intuitively.  There are occasions when you can do something with a small object or device that would be impossible otherwise.  This photo from Ilan Kelman for instance illustrates the idea perfectly: There are times that “smallness” gets you to places that larger objects can’t reach—like parking spaces!

It’s easy to see how making things that we can see and touch small can enhance their value.  But the utility of smallness doesn’t stop when things become invisible to the naked eye.  All the way down to the nanometer scale, there are opportunities to make things work better or work differently by making them small.

Here’s a very trivial example of smallness making a difference at the nanometer scale, but it’s a useful illustration of why size matters:

Silver is a great antimicrobial agent.  It’s been used for millennia to prevent infections from spreading and is one of the reasons why “silverware” is—or used to be—made of the metal.

But it’s not that easy to use.  Large lumps of metal aren’t always that easy to incorporate into products that you want to keep sterile or have antimicrobial properties.

One solution is convert the individual silver atoms into charged ions that can be dissolved in liquids and incorporated into other substances.  As its the ionic form of silver that is most harmful to microbes, this makes a lot of sense.  But ionic silver isn’t that easy to use either.  Say you have a silk scarf or a wound dressing you want to imbue with antimicrobial properties.  Getting those silver ions in there without changing the physical feel and nature of the material is a tough challenge.

This is where smallness comes in.  Make the silver metal into nanometer-sized particles, and it becomes relatively easy to get it into a wide range of products.  Because these are particles we are dealing with, there isn’t so much complex chemistry behind using them.  And because they are so small, they don’t unduly affect the feel and performance of the products they are used in.  As an added advantage, replacing a few large particles with millions of small ones increases the chances of microbes coming into contact with them manyfold.

Because of the advantages of smallness when it comes to using silver as an antimicrobial, there has been an explosion of products using silver nanoparticles—everything from refrigerators to socks to toothpaste.  And all because smallness gets you to new places.

It’s a trivial example, but it does illustrate an important way in which “smallness” through increased control over matter at the nanoscale leads to added value.

It’s not the only way though—there is also strangeness.

Strangeness. No two questions about it, things can get a little weird down at the nanoscale. This is good – it means that controlling matter at this scale opens up a whole new toolbox of material properties that can be put to good use.

Vicki Colvin at Rice University came up with a great analogy for strangeness a few years back.  It went something like this:  Imagine you have a cat.  It looks like a cat, sounds like a cat, smells like a cat.  Now, imagine you have a technology that allows you to make that cat smaller.  As you shrink your cat down, it gets smaller and smaller, but still retains its essential cat-ness.  But imagine reaching a point where suddenly, instead of looking, smelling, sounding like a cat, your cat becomes a dog!

This is the very essence of strangeness—materials behaving in unexpected and sometimes radically different ways when they are engineered at a nanometer scale.  This doesn’t always happen—it depends on the material and the scale on which the material is being engineered—but in some cases the changes in behavior can be startling.

A good example is found in the metal gold.

Gold is an inert, yellowish metal—everyone knows this.  It’s lack of reactivity is why so much jewelry is made from the stuff (it doesn’t tarnish), and in part why it holds its value.  But form gold into particles just a new nanometers across, and everything changes—the metal does the equivalent of transforming from a cat into a dog.  Instead of appearing yellowish in color, the particles now appear red, and become highly chemically active.

This change in color has been exploited for millennia in glass-making (unbeknownst to the glass-makers, who had no idea they were making and using nanoparticles), with perhaps the most famous example being the Lycurgus cup from Roman times.  Illuminated from behind, the gold nanoparticle-containing dichroic glass that the cup is made from appears deep red in color.

This strange behavior has a lot to do with how the movement of electrons in materials is affected when they are engineered at a nanometer scale.  As these movements affect everything from electrical conductivity and interactions with electromagnetic radiation—including visible light—to how a material conducts heat, nanometer-scale engineering allows scientists and engineers to tap into material properties that are rarely accessible without control at this level.

But it’s not enough to have a smorgasbord of strangeness at out fingertips—we also need the ability to use these unusual properties.  And this is where sophistication comes in.

Sophistication. As humans, we are pre-programmed to build things.  As kids, we start early—usually with large blocks.  But we soon learn that there are limits to what can be made with these rather awkward building blocks, and so we progress on to finer blocks—think of it as graduating from wooden blocks to Duplo.  However, it isn’t long before we outgrow these bricks and crave something smaller with which to create increasingly sophisticated structures.  And so we discover that ultimate building medium—Lego.

It’s a rather tongue in cheek analogy, but it illustrates something we all know: The smaller the building blocks we use, the more sophisticated the products we can make.  This applies at the human scale, but it just as equally applies at the nanometer scale.  In fact, being able to build with nanometer-scale clumps of atoms and molecules gives us perhaps what is the ultimate construction set.  And before anyone interjects with “surely that’s just chemistry,” the distinction here is the ability to put these small clumps where we want them with nanometer scale precision.  This is sophistication at the nanometer scale, and opens up new possibilities in engineering materials and products with enhanced or unique properties.

It’s probably fair to say that we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what can be achieved through sophisticated nanometer-scale engineering, but already there are examples that hint at the potential that is opening up.

Here you see a schematic of an actual nanometer-scale particle developed by Raoul Kopelman and Martin Philbert at the University of Michigan.  What is particularly interesting is the sophisticated way this particle has been engineered at the nanoscale to carry out a number of tasks.

The core particle is coated with a thin layer of PolyEthylene Glycol (PEG) to make it invisible to the body’s defense systems.  It is also covered with molecules that enable it to attach to a specific target cell—a particular cancer cell in this case.  Internally, the nanoparticle has been engineered with a contrast-enhancing agent, meaning that when sufficient particles are attached to the tumor being treated, they can be seen using imaging techniques like MRI.

Then the really clever bit—the particles have been engineered with a sensitizer.  In essence, this is a component that causes the particle to do something when it receives a signal.  In this case, when the particle is illuminated with a particular wavelength of light, it releases chemicals to kill the cancer cell it is attached to.

This “smart” particle represents an incredible degree of sophistication at the nanometer scale, and does what it does—destroys cancer cells without affecting healthy cells—because of this sophistication.  And it’s only one example from an increasing number of applications that demonstrate what can be achieved when we have the sophistication to build things at close to the scale of individual atoms and molecules.

At the end of the day, smallness, strangeness and sophistication don’t tell you everything you need to know to understand why an increasing ability to control matter at the nanoscale is so important.  But they do provide a pretty good insight—dare I say, a sophisticated insight—into what can be achieved by working at this scale.

They also create a bridge between two largely separate spheres that is poised to take our control over the world in which we live to an entirely new level.  But more of that next time.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Control: Gaining mastery over the world at the finest level

Next: Nanoscale control: Leveraging biology

Just in case anyone wasn’t clear, President Obama blew away any residual doubts this morning that he considers science and technology supremely important to the future well-being of the US.  In a stirring and historic speech to the National Academies of Science (audio recording available here),  Obama laid out his vision for a nation leading the world in science and technology, not following it.

At the heart of the speech, a commitment to devoting more than 3% of the United States’ Gross Domestic Product to science research, along with new initiatives to ensure better science technology and math education, greater opportunities to translate basic research into socially-relevant innovation, and and a call to the science community to engage with and inspire the next generation of scientists, technologists and engineers.

This was clearly a call to arms to the science, technology and engineering communities to re-establish the US as a leader rather than follower in an increasingly technology-dependent world, backed up with strong commitments to make this happen… Energy took center stage – the grand challenge this generation faces to combat “carbon pollution” and create clean energy solutions.  But much of the speech concerned how to get there – ensuring the creation of “scientific capital” through basic research, enabling the translation of new knowledge to innovative solutions, and providing an educated and skilled workforce to do the job.

This was a speech with substance, crafted to appeal to an highly appreciative science audience.  But the messages clearly reflect a far greater commitment to building the foundations of a successful and sustainable science and technology-based society.  It wasn’t so much  “ensuring science takes its rightful place” as “scientists – take your rightful place… and here are some things to help you on your way.”

I’m 100% with Obama on the need for sophisticated and well-supported science and technology policies.  As I’ve written before, it is inconceivable that many of the global challenges facing society over the next few decades can be addressed without more advanced technologies – along with a good understanding of how to use them – than we have now.  And what we heard today is a critical step in the right direction.  Importantly, Obama has elevated science and technology to a central position in his policies, and has provided the tools to make them work for society.

But there is still an awfully long way to go.  Science and technology won’t lead to socially relevant solutions simply by throwing money and good ideas at them.  Effective policies will need to reflect an increasingly sophisticated understanding of how science and technology innovation work, and the evolving role of Earth’s 6 billion and growing citizens in determining the future course of technology-based solutions to pressing problems.

The initiatives announced by Obama today go some way to addressing these challenges, although I suspect more is needed.  Emerging policies still seem to be based on the dichotomy between basic and applied research set in place by Vannevar Bush 50 years ago, despite increasing realization that this is a misleading perspective on how best to nurture innovation in science and technology.  And there is still a misplaced sense that the key to engagement is education – filling in people’s knowledge gaps so they can see the world through science-focused eyes.

Yet despite these wrinkles, Obama has clearly placed the US on the right track if it is to lead the world in developing science and technology solutions that work – not just for now, but for decades and even centuries to come.

Part 4 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

So far in this series of occasional blogs, I’ve covered coupling and communication—two of three “C’s” which together are challenging how science and technology are best used to serve society.  Now it’s the time to delve into the third “C”—control.

Because this is a tough subject to cover in one bite, I’m going to split it between three posts.  Here, I’ll get the background stuff out of the way.  Then, in the following posts in the series, I’ll take a look at why this “C” is so transformative, and some of the more advanced directions control is taking us in.

To kick things off, I want to start big.  The image to the right is an artist’s impression of a scheme dreamt up by Roger Angel at the University of Arizona to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth—a possible approach to combating (in part) global warming.  It represents the idea of suspending trillions of solar diffusers – fuzzy translucent plates—at the Lagrange point between the earth and the sun, where they can deflect a small amount of the sun’s radiation away from the planet.

If we could achieve this, it would be the largest feat of planetary control ever undertaken.

Just a few years ago, such a scheme would have been pure science fiction.  But we are getting to the point where advances in science and technology are bringing mega-engineering projects like this within our grasp.  For the first time in human history, we have both the audacity and technology to think about controlling our environment on a planetary scale.

This taking control of things on a grand scale is part of what the third “C” is about.  But it is only the tip of the iceberg.  Going back to Angel’s solar sunshade, it’s worth asking what it would take to transform this idea from fantasy to reality.  In amidst the myriad engineering challenges it represents is the issue of materials—how do you make solar diffusers (or “flyers”) light enough yet robust enough to do their job?  The reality is, the materials needed to achieve this simply don’t exist at present.

Which means that for the plan to work, new materials need to be created.

This isn’t a trivial thing to achieve.  It’s not as if we are going to discover some fancy new element that can be made into a wonder-material.  Rather, the solution is going to lie in how we put small groups of regular atoms—the building blocks of everything we use—together in different ways, to form new and better materials.

And this brings us to the area where increasing control is going to be truly transformative—control over matter at the scale of atoms and molecules—the nanoscale.

But why should controlling matter down at this miniscule level make a difference? The answer lies in what makes stuff work better, and what messes it up.

Most materials we use nowadays are not as good as they could be.  They generally function OK, but they could be better.  And the reason for this is that down at the nanoscale, they are a mess—atoms aren’t aligned properly, there are gaps in the structure where there shouldn’t be, stuff is present that should not be there, while the stuff that should be there isn’t where it ought to be.

This isn’t surprising.  Until relatively recently, we didn’t have the tools or the know-how to engineer stuff down at the atomic level, so we had to make do with rather imperfect materials.  This is changing though, and it is changing extremely rapidly.

Eighty years or so ago, scientists began to develop ways of seeing—or at least taking a good stab at visualizing—the structure of materials on an atomic scale.  Techniques like electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction opened up a brand new perspective on how stuff is put together.  More importantly, these and other tools gave scientists the feedback they needed to start tinkering systematically with materials at the nanoscale.

The age of nanometer-scale control was born.

Over the past couple of decades, near atomic-level control over matter has surged ahead, as growing awareness of its importance has combined with greater incentives for scientists to work across traditional boundaries and huge funding initiatives from government and industry.  The result has been rapid progress in engineering materials and products that work—or work better—because their structure has been controlled and manufactured at the nanometer scale.  Products as diverse as computers and cosmetics are already benefitting from the added value that comes from nanoscale control.  Already there are hundreds of consumer products out there that manufacturers claim do what they do “better” because of nanoscale engineering.  These are small fry though compared to some of the applications in the pipeline—smart drugs, new power sources, faster computers, even designer microbes.  And the indications are that we are only just beginning to flex our nano-muscles.

The bottom line here is that while science and technology are going to have a highly visible impact on our lives over the next few decades, progress is going to be underpinned in most cases by our increasing control over materials at the invisible nanoscale.

To begin to grasp how working with matter at such a small scale opens up new opportunities, it’s worth focusing on three features of nanoscale control—smallness, strangeness and sophistication.  These will be the subjects of the next blog in this series.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Communication: Science and technology in a connected world

Next: Control at the nanoscale: Smallness, strangeness and sophistication

Part 3 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

I’m fascinated by the power of communication.  The idea that someone’s perceptions and actions can be changed by information received through sight, sound or touch, is rather profound.  Even more so is the idea that, through exchanging information and ideas, people can influence and change the course of whole societies.

Communication—my third “C” in this series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century—is powerful.  It always has been.  But rapid changes in how we communicate with each other are rewriting the rules on how that power is manifest.  And no-where are these changes as significant as in the development and use of new science and technology.

I’m not going to write extensively about how modern communications are changing the world here—there are a thousand and one commentators discussing the emergence of the Flat Earth, globalization, Web X.0 and other ramifications of living in an increasingly connected world.  But I do want to establish how communication is a critical factor influencing the future development and use of science and technology. Because when combined with the other two “C’s”—Coupling and Control—new challenges arise that are going to be tough to handle from a 20th century perspective.

In broad terms, the changing face of global communications is affecting science and technology in three ways:

First, advances in modern communication are revolutionizing “peer-peer” and “peer-lay” information exchange. Twenty years ago, rooting out scientific information was a physical adventure.  I remember cycling between libraries, chasing up reference trails, lugging weighty tomes around while wandering along seemingly endless shelves of books.  I could get quite nostalgic about time spent surrounded by piles of journals in musty Cambridge libraries.  Nowadays of course nothing is further than the click of a mouse away.  And it’s not just journals—the internet is flooded with a wealth of information which is richer than could ever be imagined 20 years ago.  Researchers have access to vast arrays of new information in their own field, as well as new findings in other disciplines.  The result is a cross-fertilization that is driving the generation of new scientific knowledge and technology innovation at an unprecedented rate.

But the same information is also available to non-experts—the “lay public.”  Now, anyone can in principle access in-depth information on the latest scientific breakthroughs.  And where they might struggle with esoteric science, there are a growing number of resources that translate and repackage the knowledge into more manageable chunks.  As a consequence, science and technology are being democratized.

It’s still a relatively select community that is benefiting from this increasing access to information.  But the day is quite possibly coming when the current intellectual hierarchies will begin to crumble, and a new science and technology order will emerge.

Secondly, advances in modern communication are revolutionizing the exchange of ideas. Ideas propagate along lines of communication and change individuals and groups who come into contact with them.  In the past, geographical and technological barriers have limited the growth and influence of ideas around the world.  But with the advent of Web 2.0 and whatever comes next, traditional barriers are being blown away.  And as a result, new ideas are spreading and potentially changing how people think and behave faster and more unpredictably than ever before.

This new interconnectedness will have profound implications on global society.  And this will include a clear impact on science and technology—one that we are already seeing.  Through advances in global communication, individuals and groups will form opinions and ideas on emerging science and technology as new knowledge and abilities are developed.  In effect, the old intellectual command and control model is disappearing.  Which means that the debate over how science is done, what areas of science are pursued, and which new technologies are developed (and how) is now very public, and very global.  And there is no guarantee that the participants will have the same understanding of or respect for hard data as the people generating them.

This global exchange of ideas leads into the third way in which advances in communication will affect science and technology: Decentralization. Advancing communication is empowering citizens to influence the course of science and technology in ways that transcend traditional boundaries.  If a group of people decide they don’t like a new technology, it’s relatively easy for them to mobilize and hinder the progress of that technology.  It happened with genetically modified organisms, and there have been concerns that it could happen in other areas like nanotechnology or synthetic biology (for example).  And with this increasing decentralized influence, scientists can scream and shout until they are blue in the face about the authority of hard data—if people don’t want something, it ain’t going to happen.

Which means that if science and technology are to be used wisely and beneficially over the next century, this new communication landscape needs to be understood and navigated.

In the original lecture on which this series is based, I used two examples to illustrate the implications of rapidly evolving global communication—one rather trivial, the other slightly less so.

First, I wanted to illustrate the rapidity with which communication networks are growing around the world, and how information and ideas propagate along these.  I chose Twitter, and one particular user; the British comedian and raconteur Stephen Fry—this is the trivial example.

The growth of interest in Twitter has been phenomenal, and only matched by the growth in stature of users like Stephen Fry (or to use his Twitter persona, @stephenfry).  For the uninitiated, Twitter builds on text messaging by allowing users to send messages of 140 characters or less to other users.  Any message you post can be read by anyone else, although it is delivered directly to your “followers.”  And likewise, any message posted by someone you “follow” is delivered directly to you.  You can then (if you so choose) decide to redirect—or “ReTweet”—that message to your own followers.

In this way a complex web of rapid global communication is established.

Four weeks ago when I was preparing to speak in Oxford, @stephenfry had the fifth highest following on Twitter—with around 280,000 followers.  It’s a testament to the growth of the medium that now—just four weeks later—he is 22nd in the popularity stakes (with 380,000 followers).  But the ranking is not important.  Think, for a moment, of the reach @stephenfry has if he comes up with a bright idea and posts it on Twitter.  380,000 people will receive and (hopefully) read this new nugget of information.  Some of them will pass it on—especially if it’s a good one.  And some of these will pass it on in turn, perhaps embellishing the idea.  The result is a web of nodes and connections that favor the propagation and evolution of ideas over a potentially vast number of people.

The top-subscribed Twitter user is currently @cnnbrk (breaking news from CNN) with 820,000 followers—more than the circulation of a small newspaper and climbing by over 12,000 followers a day.  Just imagine the reach of ideas propagated through this network, especially as they get picked up and pass on by other power users.

Twitter is just one example of how people are interacting through the web and information and ideas are propagating in ways that are completely alien to how the world worked a few years ago.  But there’s another side to this.  A flood of information with inadequate filtering and interpretation is simply noise, and becomes more ineffective the more of it there is.  For the communication revolution to go anywhere, there need to be new ways of handing the mass of information we are exposed to.

Not surprisingly, this is happening.  The second example here is just one of many where new innovations are helping to assimilate this flood of data.  It comes from Pranav Mistry in Patti Maes’ group at the MIT Media Lab, and is part of the Sixth Sense project:

[For a fuller explanation of what you are seeing, check out Patti Maes’ TED video]

What you see is an attempt to contextualize the mass of data available over the web, by using complex information collection, processing, retrieval and presentation.  The system comprises a video camera, projector and web-enabled phone, worn by the user.  By integrating all three components, the wearer can now interact with the web in a very intuitive and context-specific manner—almost as if there was an additional sense reaching out into cyber space.

Using interactive systems like this—which I guarantee are going to become very sophisticated very fast—the door is opened to exchanging information, ideas and influence between real and virtual communities around the globe in ways which will have a profound impact on how we live our lives.  This combination of information and interactive processing is perhaps what makes this “C” such a powerful agent for change when it comes to science and technology.  But powerful as it is, the influence of communication is enhanced significantly by the third “C”—Control.

Over the next few posts, I’ll be exploring this idea of control in more depth.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Coupling: Actions and consequences in a shrinking world

Next: Control: Gaining mastery over the world at the finest level

[Updated 4/8/09 - slide of MIT Sixth Sense system added]

Part 2 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

In the previous post in this series I introduced the idea of the three “C’s:” Coupling Communication and Control—three factors that together challenge conventional ideas on how science and technology are best developed and used within society.  Following on from that introduction, I want to focus more closely on the first of these: Coupling.

I haven’t actually got much to say here that is new or unfamiliar—most of the new stuff will probably come when I reach the third “C”—Control.  In fact, the concepts buried in the idea of coupling are somewhat obvious.  But that doesn’t make them any less significant.

Very simply, coupling refers to the interconnectedness between society’s actions and global environmental re-actions…

Up until recently, it was assumed that the world was so large, and humanity so small, that whatever we did would simply be absorbed by the Earth.  Oceans, the atmosphere, the planet, were so massive that at worst our actions would cause minor blips in the system, which would dissipate over time.

We now know that this is not the case.  There is a complex dynamic between people and the Earth that has existed for millennia.  But this coupling wasn’t  apparent while the global population was relatively low and resource demands less excessive.

In the past, the lag between human actions and environmental reactions tended to be long and resulting changes gradual. This is no longer the case.  The global population will hit 7 billion people in a few years—fifty years ago it was less than half this.  And resource demands per capita have rocketed while supplies have not, meaning that today’s 6 billion people are stressing the system to a far greater extent than a mere doubling of the population would suggest.

The result is a closer coupling between out actions and the Earth’s reactions than ever before in the history of humanity.  The current implications of this ever-closer coupling are clear, and include all the usual suspects:  Increasing global pollution, acidification of the oceans, rising CO2 levels, global warming.

This coupling is getting stronger, the time lag between actions and responses is getting shorter, and the challenges of predicting and responding to society-induced changes are getting increasingly complex.

And because we are part of the system, these global changes are in turn affecting us—coupling works both ways.

Basic physics provides a simple illustration of this.  I was in two minds about showing the video below because, lets face it, its less than polished (you’ll see what I mean if you watch it).  But it does illustrate the coupling issue rather neatly—as long as the analogy isn’t stretched too far.

Coupled oscillators as an illustration of coupling between society and the Earth

What you see are a pair of coupled oscillators—cobbled together from garden twine and two Orangina bottles.  Together, they demonstrate a physics phenomenon where energy is transferred back and forth between two identical oscillating systems—pendulums in this case.

The experiment starts off with just one of the pendulums swinging.  The second seems to barely move, no matter what the first does.  But over time, the second pendulum begins to be affected by the first one, and starts to oscillate with ever-larger swings.  Then as the second pendulum gets into its stride, it begins in turn to drive the first one.  And so the cycle goes.

The analogy to humanity and the Earth is obvious.  Our actions have seemed inconsequential in the past, but they inevitably lead to environmental re-actions.  These in turn end up impacting back on us.  The analogy does fall apart rather quickly if pushed too far.  But it’s a useful reminder that there is two-way feedback between our actions and the environment we live in, and that over time our actions come back to haunt us unless we proceed with care.

This coupling is cumulative, it is non-linear, and it is increasing rapidly as our demands on the planet grow.  Which means that the consequences of what we do, and the global impacts of those consequences, are becoming harder to predict and control.

Managing this coupling will take all of our skill, and will not be possible without significant advances in science and technology.  Which is why no discussion of science and technology and their role in society can afford to neglect it.

But the story doesn’t end there.  Growing global demands are strengthening the coupling between people and the planet.  But other factors are also playing into this complex relationship; magnifying the challenges emerging in an already serious situation.  One of these factors is the rapid evolution of global communications systems, which is shaking up how information and ideas flow around the globe.

This virtual coupling between people will be the focus of the next post in this series.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Science, technology and the three “C’s:” Communication, Coupling and Control

Next: Communication: Science and technology in a connected world

Reading yesterday’s New York Times, it seems China could well be poised to leapfrog the West in advanced battery technology (China Vies to Be World’s Leader in Electric Cars). According to the article, Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars and buses after that.

If they deliver the goods, the economic ramifications will be significant.  But then so will the resulting breakthroughs in battery technology.

Despite our ever-increasing addiction to battery-powered gizmos, current technologies are seriously limited.  My laptop and cell-phone (and this morning, my e-book) constantly seem to die at most inopportune moments.  And remembering to recharge the 1001 things in my life that depend on batteries (while working out which recharger goes with which device) is a time-suck I could easily live without.

No question, personal electronics are desperately in need of a major battery upgrade.

But that’s small fry compared to the challenges of developing usable batteries for power-hungry cars.

The problem is, it’s hard to get electricity into batteries fast; hard to get it out again; and once you’ve got a lot of it in there, hard to prevent the battery having a melt-down—remember the stories of igniting/exploding PC batteries?  These are tractable problems for the small stuff—cell phones and the like—but they present enormous obstacles to scaling up batteries large enough to power cars.

Yet developing battery-powered cars makes a lot of sense… It reduces reliance on highly-refined fossil fuels.  It has the potential to even out electricity demands—essentially using batteries as an energy-buffer.  It enables Prius-like energy-recovery while driving. And it relocates a harmful source of pollution (tailpipe emissions) to where it can be better managed—at the power station.

The good news is that emerging technologies like nanotechnology are providing solutions to at least some of the challenges being faced in developing advanced batteries.  Lithium ion batteries in particular are benefiting from electrodes engineered with nanometer-scale structures, which decrease charging time and increase power output, while improving battery safety.  Companies like A123 and Altairnano are already exploiting nanotechnology-based developments in advanced batteries.  And anecdotally, experts suspect that the performance of most high-end laptop batteries already depend on the use of carbon nanotubes in the electrodes.

There’s still some way to go before this technology matures to the point where electric cars make sense on a grand scale.  But that day is coming.  And by all accounts China will be in the lead when it does.  China is already a major player in the field of nanotechnology (see last week’s piece by Tom Mackenzie in The Guardian for instance), and has the capacity to focus research and development resources where they are most likely to deliver the goods.

The end result probably doesn’t bode well for an ailing US car industry which is still struggling to readjust to a world where smaller, lighter, greener are the order of the day (even the much-touted Chevy Volt still looks like old ideas dressed in new technology).  But a push by China to develop technologically and economically viable electric cars could stimulate world-wide development of battery technologies that leads to a reduced dependence on fossil fuels, and a smaller overall environmental footprint.

That would certainly be good news.

And as a spin-off, there’s a chance that we might finally get batteries for our laptops, cell phones and e-books that don’t die when we need the most.  Now that would be progress indeed!

Footnotes

While writing this, there was some discussion on the NYT article and batteries in general on Twitter.  I particularly wanted to acknowledge helpful comments and links from @joergheber (esp. on wireless power transfer), @quantum_tunnel (re-engineering batteries) and @crc2008 (for the link to the Lightning Car Company) – thanks guys.

Part 1 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

We live in a crowded, science and technology-dependent word.  And things aren’t getting any better!  The global population is currently around 6.8 billion.  Over the next four years it’s projected to grow to over 7 billion.  And by 2050, the US Census Bureau estimates there will be over 9.5 billion men women and children on the planet; all of them expecting food, water, shelter, and a first world standard of living.  The only way such demands can be met—if indeed they can be (and it’s a big “if”)—is through the increasingly sophisticated and strategic use of science and technology.

The level of scientific knowledge and technological ability that exists now underpins modern society.  Remove it, and things collapse.  But what is less obvious is that science and technology need to continually develop in a changing world.  As new challenges, needs and wants arise, we need a steady stream of new knowledge and new technology innovation.  Without science progress and technology innovation, our ability to sustain a healthy global society will not keep pace with the challenges to achieving this.

Of course, this is nothing new.  Science, technology and society have been intertwined for tens of thousands of years.  Homo sapiens are tool-makers and tool users—technology is in our blood.  Our history is one of progression through technology innovation—from early tools, to husbandry, to the industrial revolution and on to synthetic chemicals manufacture, nuclear power, semiconductor fabrication, and so on.

Some would say we’ve done pretty well out of this fascination with science and technology.  And by all accounts we have.  On a global scale, life expectancies are longer and quality of life is higher than ever before.

But this isn’t necessarily a sustainable trend.  With a growing population, dwindling resources and increasing demands on them, the pressures on science and technology to deliver the good are mounting.  At the same time, the world is changing in ways that could well stretch established approaches to ensuring adequate science and technology innovation to breaking point.

Take for instance the rate at which knowledge and ideas are now spreading, crossing boundaries, and influencing people. Or the increasingly strong links between human actions and environmental re-actions. And how about the ability of scientists to bend the material world to their every whim, even down to the scale of atoms and molecules?  In each of these cases, we are achieving more now than ever before in human history.  And the rate of progress is accelerating.  Separately, they challenge the effectiveness of conventional approaches to using science and technology in the service of society.  Together, they could well shake things up so much that established ways of doing things are no longer responsive to society’s needs.

These are the three “C’s:” Communication, Coupling and Control.  Communication: the flow and influence of information and ideas between people and institutions.  Coupling: the ever-closer relationship between society and the Earth.  And Control: our rapidly developing ability to control our surroundings from the atomic level through to the planetary scale.  Over the next few blogs in this series I will be talking about each “C” in more depth, and how together they potentially change the game when it comes to science and technology.

Next up: Coupling: Actions and consequences in a shrinking world

Notes

“Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century” is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Next: Coupling: Actions and consequences in a shrinking world

[3/19/09 correction - when the page was initially posted, it listed the third blog in this series - on communication - as being next]

Like it or not, society is dependent on science and technology.  The only way we can cram 6 billion people plus onto the earth and use resources at the rate we do, is through the support of scientific discovery and technology innovation.  Take our technology-based infrastructure away and civilization as we know it would collapse.

Perhaps more worrying, our dependency on science and technology is accelerating.  The world’s population continues to grow, lifestyle expectations are going up, and supporting technologies are becomes increasingly sophisticated.  But this “progress” can only be sustained through increasing the rate with which new discoveries are made and new technology innovations are implemented.

At some point this cycle of technology addiction probably needs to be broken if society is to avoid a rather nasty crash.  But I suspect that such a crash is some way off yet.  And it is entirely plausible that the solution for avoiding such a crash will itself arise from technology-based innovation.

Which means that if global society is to continue to mature and prosper, we have to get the whole science and technology enterprise right.

The only alternative is to face a radical “recalibration” of society, leading to a population level and demands on resources that are more in keeping with the Earth’s load-carrying capacity.

Assuming that we want to avoid a rapid and potentially catastrophic reduction in the world’s population, we need to ask whether the way we currently “do” science and technology is good enough.  And if it isn’t what needs to change?

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is going to be the subject of a series of blogs over the next few weeks—I’m afraid this is only the teaser!  I’ll be drawing on a recent lecture at the James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford University, which means that if you want a heads-up, you can always browse through the slides [PDF, 8.9 MB].  But I should warn you that the story might not be that clear from the slides alone.

This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be aiming to publish a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.  First off will be the framing the problem, and introducing the “three C’s”—look out for it over the next week.

In the meantime, here’s the abstract from the original lecture, to whet your appetite:

As we move further into the 21st century, we are facing a confluence of three factors that will shake up the interface between society and science.  Nanoscale science and technology are enabling unprecedented control over matter, allowing living and non-living systems to be manipulated and used in radical new ways.  Innovative new approaches to communication and networking are facilitating the emergence of virtual partnerships that transcend geographical, organizational and social boundaries.  And society is now so closely coupled to the biosphere that our actions are stressing the system to a greater extent than ever before in human history.

This confluence of control, communication and coupling raises major challenges for society in the 21st century.   But it also contains the seeds of effective solutions.  However, to nurture and grow these seeds, new approaches to science and technology innovation will be needed.  These will include developing research agendas that are driven by social challenges, engaging citizens through building constituencies, and cultivating scientists with a clear sense of civic responsibility.

Update: The full series of posts on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century can be accessed here.

It’s been a big week for geoengineering.  First there was the news that the world’s largest geoengineering experiment to date is about to start in the Southern Ocean.  Following close behind was a new study on how geoengineering projects could potentially impact global climate change, ranging from covering vast tracts of desert with a reflective coating to suspending giant mirrors in space.  And today sees the publication of a new paper in the journal Nature indicating that, while fertilizing oceans with iron compounds can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sequestration rate is far lower than previously estimated.

Reading through these and other accounts, it seems clear that the deliberate modification of the Earth’s environment on a vast scale is rapidly moving from the realms of fantasy to those of possibility.  Almost overnight it seems, geoengineering has become respectable.

Climate change is largely responsible—it has hammered home the message more than anything else perhaps that humanity is now able to influence the environment on a global scale.  Just the sheer magnitude of the possible impacts of global warming has made people think seriously about countering the effects through mega-engineering.  And the simple realization that our actions can make a difference to the global environment has contributed to an intellectual leap of imagination; scientists and engineers now have the audacity to think “yes we can” when it comes to countering anthropogenic climate change with engineered interventions.

This would all be wishful thinking though if it wasn’t for rapid advances in science and technology that are underpinning the emerging “yes we can” geoengineering mentality.  Although its early days still, scientists and engineers are beginning to develop the understanding and tools to put grand schemes into place, and start playing around with Earth’s systems on a global scale.

This confluence of need, awareness and ability is bringing new vigor to geoengineering.  And it’s hard to deny that its exciting stuff. … Imagine, at the very point where humanity begins to push the boundaries of sustainable existence under existing conditions, we develop the means to conform our global environment to our needs—inverse-evolution if you like.  We discover that science and technology give us a lever large enough to shift the world, metaphorically speaking.  We find that by controlling matter at the nanoscale, we can bend it to our will at the megascale.  In short, geoengineering appears to be humanity’s right-of-passage to planetary maturity.

But back up just a minute.  It seems there is something missing here.  Sure, we have the imagination and the ability to change things on a global scale.  But these abilities seem to far outstrip our understanding of their consequences.  It almost seems that scientists are in danger of applying the hypothesis-driven science of the laboratory to the whole world, while forgetting that when the hypothesis fails, there aren’t too many options to go back and start again.  And in the clamor to find technological fixes to technology-driven problems, it sometimes appears that we’ve forgotten to ask what we should do, as well as what we can do.

If we are going to get geoengineering right—and I think in the long-run it is as important as it is inevitable—we are going to need some serious ethical input to its development and application.  And while I generally avoid artificially slicing and dicing ethics, I think it would be no bad thing to further develop the idea of geoethics, as dealing with the appropriateness of decisions that affect societies on a global scale, and possibly over many lifetimes.

Of course, the concept of geoethics isn’t new—it’s been around in one form or another for decades, usually in the context of general anthropomorphic environmental impacts.  But to my mind the potential impact of geoengineering is such that it is going to need it’s own ethical framework that enables people to agree on a wise course of action.

Certainly, geoengineering raises many tricky issues.  For instance, we are still a long way from understanding and predicting the behavior and interactions of global systems, over short, medium and long timescales.  Interfering with systems we don’t understand is likely to lead to unanticipated consequences on a global scale.   And history has repeatedly demonstrated that simplistic interventions in environmental/ecological systems lead to adverse unintended consequences. On top of this, global interventions will have global impacts, meaning that great care needs to be taken in ensuring groups affected by potential outcomes are a part of the decision-making process.

These and other questions suggest to me that it’s worth developing the area of geoethics to apply specifically to geoengineering.  I’m not the first to propose this.  Perhaps the clearest articulation of geoethics in the context of geoengineering is Jamais Cascio’s article on Worldchanging.com from 2005.  Here’s what Cascio proposed as a definition back then:

“Geoethics is the set of guidelines pertaining to human behaviors that can affect larger planetary geophysical systems, including atmospheric, oceanic, geological, and plant/animal ecosystems. These guidelines are most relevant when the behaviors can result in long-term, widespread and/or hard-to-reverse changes in planetary systems, although even transient, local and superficial alterations can be considered through the prism of geoethics. Geoethical principles do not forbid long-term, widespread and/or hard-to-reverse changes, but require a consideration of repercussions and so-called “second-order effects” (that is, the usually-unintended consequences arising from the interaction of the changed system and other connected systems).”

He follows this with a set of core principles, which I’m not sure I entirely agree with (you can read them here).  Nevertheless, it’s a start.

Admittedly, there are international guidelines and agreements in place that already cover the responsible use of geoengineering to a certain extent.  Included in these is the Convention on Biological Diversity, which cautions against ocean fertilization (for instance)—a key geoengineering approach to sequestering carbon dioxide.  But what exists currently isn’t sufficient to engage people around the world in an integrated and informed debate over how to proceed appropriately.

The start of the Southern Ocean fertilization experiment was surrounded in controversy this week, but it went ahead anyway.  Even though it involves releasing six tons of iron over 300 square kilometers of ocean, it is a triflingly small experiment compared to what could be on the books in the near future.  If the global community are to get their heads around what is right and appropriate before the next big Earth-experiment comes along, now might be a good time to start working on geoethics for geoengineering—before it’s too late.

_________________________________

Note

For a good primer on various proposed geoengineering projects, and their possible impact on global warming, I would strongly recommend the just-published paper by Lenton and Vaughan; “The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options” (Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 9, 2559–2608, 2009).

Update, 1/29/09:  Alexis Madrigal’s article “Scientists Rank Global Cooling Hacks” on Wired Science provides an excellent distillation of the key information in the Lenton and Vaughan paper.  You also have to wonder – from the title of the piece – whether we need to start thinking about an emerging “geohacker” community!

If you are a regular visitor to 2020 Science, you may have noticed some changes creeping into the site in recent days.  The content’s still the same—a clear perspective on developing science and technology responsibly, with an emphasis on nanotechnology and synthetic biology (and anything else that piques my interest).  But hopefully the new layout and format make reading it a more pleasurable and productive experience.

If you don’t like the changes, blame Ruth Seeley at No Spin PR—she’s the one who is sucking me into putting the blog on a more professional footing!

Actually, that’s not at all fair—Ruth is helping develop a social networking strategy for 2020 Science (and doing a great job of it), and the changes have been prompted in part by the need to move the site to a new web host as we begin implementing the strategy.  And so far, the changes enabled by the move are rather exciting.  Not only does the website now look substantially better, but I can actually start playing around with WordPress plug-ins—geek heaven!

I’ll be refining the site further over the coming weeks, but in the meantime here’s a quick rundown on the more significant changes you should check out:

Quick access to nanotechnology and synthetic biology posts. Simply clicking on the relevant tab in the page header will take you to all blog posts on that subject.

Subscribe button. Actually, you’ve always been able to subscribe to 2020 Science, but this is such a neat feature I thought a reminder was due.  And the button now takes you to Feedburner, to make life even easier.

Twitter feed. This is where recent 2020 Science “Tweets” are posted (do other Twitter users cringe as much as I do at the terminology here?) – check this column out for breaking news and comment on emerging science and technology, and beyond–it’s usually updated several times a day.

Top Notes. Stuff that I think is worth highlighting—expect the content to change frequently.

Lots of lovely links. Now broken down into what are hopefully helpful categories, this is a growing list of links to other blogs and websites that I enjoy reading and find useful – located towards the bottom of the right hand sidebar.

“Share this” button. If you like a blog post, please share it with your friends—it’s now as easy as pie with the neat ShareThis link on each entry.

Technorati button. If you like 2020 Science, it’s now easy to add it to your Technorati favorites – simply click the button in the sidebar.

Resources tab. In the header—this is where you can find links to lectures I’ve given, stuff I’ve published, and media articles where I’ve been quoted.  Probably not interesting for most people, but the stuff’s there, just in case.

That’s pretty much it for the moment.  Next blog: back to the business of writing about “important” stuff.

Enjoy.

(And please don’t forget to comment!)

Public engagement was a key feature in Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and has been front and foremost in the transition between the old administration and the new.  You only have to check out change.gov to see how ideas are evolving on soliciting and evaluating opinions from a broad swath of the population.  The latest is the “Citizens Briefing Book”—top-rated ideas from everyday people, to be delivered to Obama after he is sworn in.

This emphasis on open government, citizen engagement, and the use of enabling web-based technology, is expected to spill over to the new administration big-time.  And as it does, the public discourse will inevitably encompass science and technology—it already has on the incoming administration’s website.  But this raises serious questions:  How do you pull people from all walks of life into conversations about science and technology—which are often complex—and how do you empower them to participate in making effective and influential decisions?

These are questions that have been grappled with in the US for some time—not least in the area of nanotechnology.  The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 for instance had specific provisions

“for public input and outreach to be integrated into the [National Nanotechnology] Program by the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens’ panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate.”

This resulted in two academic Centers for Nanotechnology and Society being established—one at Arizona State University and another at the University of California Santa Barbara.  But apart from the research conducted by these centers, there has been little in the way of true public engagement on nanotechnology in the US, in terms of enabling citizens to enter a two-way dialogue with decision-makers.

Which is why I was particularly interested to read Richard Jones’ account of the UK experience, just posted on his blog Soft Machines.

Richard’s blog is a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in public engagement on science, and to make sure you do read it, I’m not going to give away much here. Needless to say, Richard clearly outlines the UK response to the 2004 Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s recommendation that

“a constructive and proactive debate about the future of nanotechnologies should be undertaken now – at a stage when it can inform key decisions about their development and before deeply entrenched or polarised positions appear.”

But it is his assessment of a specific exercise in connecting public engagement to science policy, and the broader implications of this experience, that really grabs the attention.

Richard writes:

“The big question to be asked about any public engagement exercise is “what difference has it made” – has there been any impact on policy? For this to take place there needs to be careful choice of the subject for the public engagement, as well as commitment and capacity on behalf of the sponsoring body or agency to use the results in a constructive way. A recent example from the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council offers an illuminating case study. Here, a public dialogue on the potential applications of nanotechnology to medicine and healthcare was explicitly coupled to a decision about where to target a research funding initiative, providing valuable insights that had a significant impact on the decision.”

Please read the account of this exercise in full on Soft Machines—it is worth the few minutes it takes.  The bottom line is that engaging with citizens, together with input from experts, led to a more informed (and reading between the lines, socially relevant) call for research proposals in this instance.

From this point, Richard goes on to discuss the pros and cons of public engagement on science policy in a broader framework.  Writing in the context of British science, he notes

“The current interest in public engagement takes place at a time when the science policy landscape is undergoing larger changes, both in the UK and elsewhere in the world. We are seeing considerable pressure from governments for publicly funded science to deliver clearer economic and societal benefits. There is a growing emphasis on goal-oriented, intrinsically interdisciplinary science, with an agenda set by a societal and economic context rather than by an academic discipline.”

This sounds remarkably close to the message emerging from the incoming Obama administration, where science and technology in the service of society are strong themes.

Richard also emphasizes that the linear model of science—so beloved by US policy makers following in the footsteps of Vannevar Bush—“is widely recognised to be simplistic at best, neglecting the many feedbacks and hybridisations at every stage of this process.”  Instead, he notes the growing emphasis on “mode II knowledge production” … “goal-oriented, intrinsically interdisciplinary science, with an agenda set by a societal and economic context rather than by an academic discipline.”

However, this new approach to science agenda-setting requires input from the people who will be affected by decisions that are made—citizens, as well as experts.  The challenge is to develop and enact ways of achieving this that are socially responsive and tap into the “wisdom of the crowd”—rather than the “madness of the mob.”

Richard suggests that the UK experiences with nanotechnology have generally been positive, and lay the beginnings of a foundation for fruitful public engagement on science.  He concludes

“Many of the scientists who have been involved with public engagement, however, have reported that the experience is very positive. In addition to being reminded of the generally high standing of scientists and the scientific enterprise in our society, they are prompted to re-examine unspoken assumptions and clarify their aims and objectives. There are strong arguments that public deliberation and interaction can lead to more robust science policy, particularly in areas that are intrinsically interdisciplinary and explicitly coupled to meeting societal goals. What will be interesting to consider as more experience is gained is whether embedding public engagement more closely in the scientific process actually helps to produce better science.”

From my own experiences, I couldn’t agree more.  But so far, there has been little evidence of such innovative approaches being employed to develop the science and technology agenda in the US.  However with a new administration, powerful new networking tools, and a renewed impetus for socially relevant science and technology, there is every hope that public engagement might begin to take the place it deserves in the science and technology decision-making process.

After all, why should the UK have all the best ideas?

Science gone right, science gone wrong, science gone social, science gone political—it’s all here in five off-beat book recommendations to kick off 2009.  Ranging from Darwin’s Origin of Species to Sir Terry Pratchett’s Nation, the one thing I think I can guarantee is that you will struggle to find an odder bunch of literary bed-fellows!  Hope you enjoy them, and have a happy new year!

A new year, a new leaf—time for five more eclectic (some might say eccentric) book recommendations to see you through the hangover and into a brighter future.

As in the previous five good books blog, I’ve eschewed the conventional to provide as unusual a potpourri of literary delights as you will find anywhere.  And as before, I’ve tried to inject a little method into the madness—spot it if you can!

I should first apologize because this was supposed to be a quick blog, rushed off before the New Years festivities began in earnest.  But it turned into a veritable “slow blog!”

So for those of you impatient to read the recommendations and move on, here they are:

• On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
• The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow
• Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham
• Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee
• Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett

But please do read on, and discover the why behind the what… Here then, is my retrospective-prospective reading list for a technologically-enlightened 2009—enjoy!

In the number one slot: On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. How could it be anything else?  Perhaps one of the most influential books to have been written over the past couple of hundred years, the repercussions of Darwin’s seminal work are still being felt today.  2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (as if you didn’t know)—and what better excuse to go back to the source and read what the great man really wrote in what he refers to as “this abstract”—and some abstract at nearly 500 pages!

Unlike much of the debate and controversy it initiated, Origin is a carefully developed and reasoned thesis based on Darwin’s observations—evidence-based science at its best.  And rather impressively, the more we learn about life on this planet, the more Darwin’s Theory of Evolution makes sense.

This is essential reading for understanding how disruptive and empowering scientific knowledge can be within society.  As society comes to rely increasingly on science and technology, there are lessons here that are well worth learning. The Origin of Species sold out on the day it was published in 1859.  It’s hard to imagine a science text selling so fast nowadays.  Which makes you think—in all the talk about how essential technology and innovation are in today’s knowledge economy, have we lost sight of the underlying science?  I wonder…

Next up, another anniversary and another highly influential book.  On May 7 1959, Charles Percy Snow—better know as C. P. Snow—delivered the annual Rede Lecture at the University of Cambridge.  His title:  The Two Cultures. The lecture—and its subsequent appearance in print—caught the spirit of the moment as two cultures; one dominated by literary intellectuals, the other by scientists; grew increasingly detached from each other and threatened to rob society of it’s ability to progress.

Snow’s thoughts have moulded thinking about science and society over the intervening 50 years.  But just as few who uphold or decry Darwinian evolution have read the original text, I suspect that not many who talk “knowledgeably” about the two cultures are that familiar with what the man actually said.

Having recently revisited the lecture, I would strongly recommend anyone interested in the interface between science and society to read it.  The lecture is clearly of its time—society has changed since 1959.  Yet scrape away at the surface, and many of the themes in the lecture are as relevant now as they were fifty years ago—negligible communication between the world of science and “traditional culture,” disrespect for science literacy (as distinct from technology familiarity), and the importance of ensuring the scientific revolution breaks down socially indefensible barriers—especially between the rich and the poor.

Today the cultures are different, and the boundaries between them blurred.  But the bottom line is that we are more dependent than ever on science in society, yet more ignorant than ever on how science works, and how to use it wisely.

If Darwin demonstrated how disruptive science can be, Snow illuminated how essential it is to harness and use its disruptive power for good within society—or suffer the consequences.

As an aside, even more significant (in my opinion) than the original Rede lecture is Snow’s 1963 assessment of the lecture’s impact.  In The Two Cultures: A Second Look, C.P. Snow finds the freedom to explain more clearly what he was really getting at in the lecture.  Here he explains the use of the “two cultures” as a vehicle to explore far more profound aspects of the science-society relationship—many just as important yet overlooked today as they were then.  Quoting from the beginning of the essay:

“In our society (that is, advanced western society) we have lost even the pretense of a common culture.  Persons educated with the greatest intensity we know can no longer communicate with each other on the plane of their intellectual concern.  This is serious for our creative, intellectual and, above all, our normal life.  It is leading us to interpret the past wrongly, to misjudge the present, and to deny our hopes of the future.  It is making it difficult or impossible for us to take good action.”

Read these essays—they are important!

Third in the list comes something a little lighter:  Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham. Published in 1960—right on the coat-tails of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures—it is a fictitious tale of a scientific discovery leading to longer lives for a select few, and the social and moral challenges this raises.

Admittedly, the book is dated—it was written nearly fifty years ago after all.  But it’s still a great read.  And more importantly, it raises questions about the development and use of disruptive scientific knowledge that are highly relevant to today.

The story revolves around the discovery of a lichen-based compound that can extend a person’s lifespan by a factor of three.  But the compound cannot be synthesized, and the source is limited.  The moral questions raised are complex—longer life expectancy could lead to a more reflective society, more time to find solutions to pressing problems, greater quality of life.  But it could also lead to social injustice—widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and initiate social unrest.

The context may be very 1960’s, but the general issues resonate strongly with challenges facing society today as science and technology become increasingly complex.  And just as society was ill-equipped to handle disruptive science back in the 1960’s, it must be asked whether we are any better off now.

The fourth book in this list of five is something of an outsider—Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee. 2009 marks the fiftieth anniversary of this account of village life in rural England in the early twentieth century—anniversaries emerging as something of a theme here.  Most of the book has nothing to do with science and technology.  But it is worth reading for two reasons:

First, it is a beautifully crafted account of pre-industrial revolution English village life—I guarantee it will fill you for nostalgia, even if you have never seen an English village!

But more to the point, Lee begins to chart the enormous changes wrought on this thousand year old way of life by the industrial revolution—what Snow referred to as the beginnings of the scientific revolution we are still in.  If you get the chance, read the final chapter of the book.  While Lee is ambivalent on whether the changes he witnessed over the course of his youth were for good or ill, you cannot help but reflect on where the scientific revolution is leading us as you absorb his prose.

To whet your appetite, this is from the beginning of the final chapter:

“The last days of my childhood were also the last days of the village.  I belonged to that generation which saw, by chance, the end of a thousand years’ life.  The change came late on our Costwold valley, didn’t really show itself till the late 1920’s; I was twelve by then, but during that handful of years I witnessed the whole thing happen.

“Myself, my family, my generation, were born in a world of silence; a world of hard work and necessary patience, of backs bent to the ground, hands massaging the crops, of waiting on weather and growth; of villages like ships in the empty landscapes and the long walking distances between them; of white narrow roads, rutted by hooves and cart-wheels, innocent of oil or petrol, down which people passed rarely, and almost never for pleasure, and the horse was the fastest thing moving.  Man and horse were all the power we had—abetted by levers and pulleys.  But the horse was king, and almost everything grew around him: fodder, smithies, stables, paddocks, distances, and the rhythms of our days.  His eight miles an hour was the limit of our movements, as it had been since the days of the Romans.  That eight miles an hour was life and death, the size of our world, our prison.”

Then came cars and machines and science and technology…

Lee’s eloquent prose demonstrates just how disruptive science and technology innovation is.  The innovation can lead to both good and bad—both Lee and Snow clearly acknowledge this.  The trick it would seem—the moral imperative even—is to act to ensure the good outweighs the bad.

Last but most definitely not least comes another novel, and a real gem of a book: Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett.

(yes, Terry has just received a well-deserved “K”.)

A word of warning up front: This is a grown-up book masquerading as a child’s story. So you might at first dismiss it.  But you do so at your peril, for Pratchett weaves an enlightening and challenging tale about science, society and religion that succeeds where many academic tomes have failed.

The story revolves around a young boy living on a Pacific island who looses his whole community to a tsunami, but ends up building a new one from the flotsam and jetsam of society that wash up on the shores.  This seemingly simple setting allows Pratchett to explore the barriers between races, cultures, philosophies, religion and science, and what can be achieved when these are broken down.

The tale is set in a parallel world, which rather delightfully enables Pratchett to bend the history of science somewhat, and the activities of some of its leading lights.  There is a beautiful homage to the likes of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and even Patrick Moore in the closing pages!

But the power of this book—and it is powerful—comes from Pratchett’s knack of shining a searing spotlight on the human condition in the most gentle and humorous of ways.

Nation covers may themes, one of which is the foolishness of blind belief.  Of course, this includes religious beliefs in the book.  But it also extends to scientific “beliefs.”  And there is a clear message here for societies facing a science and technology-dominated future: Learn from the past, respect evidence, and communicate across barriers.

To wrap up, while this is an odd set of recommended reading by anyone’s reckoning, hopefully the thread holding the list together is clear—addressing the challenges and opportunities of science and technology within society.  Writing on the brink of 2009, science and technology innovation seem more important than ever.  Yet we seem further than ever in understanding how to ensure everyone benefits from advances that are made.

Hopefully revisiting (or visiting for the first time) these books will provide a new perspective on making wise choices over the coming year.

Happy reading, and happy 2009!

_________________________

Footnotes, added 1/1/09

On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, is currently available in many imprints – check out Amazon.com for further details.

The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow, is currently published by Cambridge University Press (in the Canto series).  This edition includes both the 1959 lecture, the 1963 essay, and an excellent introduction by Stefan Collini.

Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham was recently re-released by Penguin Books UK.  US readers will need to explore that archaic institution the Library… or pay for international shipping!

Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee, is currently published in the US by David R. Godine. In the UK, the publisher is Random House.

Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett, is published by Random House in the UK, and HarpurCollins in the US.

For more on the “slow blog,” check out Todd Sieling’s Slow Blog Manifesto!

In 2003, Harvard University’s Sheila Jasanoff wrote about what she termed “Technologies of Humility.” Recognizing the growing disconnect between technological progress and its effective governance, Jasanoff explored new approaches to decision-making that “seek to integrate the ‘can-do’ orientation of science and engineering with the ‘should-do’ questions of ethical and political analysis.”  Five years on, her (still radical) ideas resonate deeply with the science and technology ambitions of the incoming Obama administration.

Sitting down this morning, I had intended to write about three papers recently published on-line in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.  The papers (by Kahan et al., Pidgeon et al. and Sheufele et al.)—which were widely reported on a few weeks back—consider factors influencing “public” responses to nanotechnology, and challenge long-held beliefs that knowledge leads to acceptance.

However, I became distracted!  Searching for an original frame for these studies, I returned to Jasanoff’s 2003 paper “Technologies of Humility: Citizen participation in governing Science,” published in the journal Minerva (Minerva 41:223-244).  Reading it, I was struck afresh by how germane Jasanoff’s ideas are, how completely they seemed to have been ignored in US policy making, and how important they are to the science and technology agenda of the incoming Obama administration.

Rather than read a re-hash from me of what is an eloquently written and very accessible paper, I would strongly recommend you pour yourself a glass of good wine (a cup of coffee or fine tea will do just as well), carve out some quality time, and read the original—which is downloadable from here [PDF, 120 KB].  It is after all the holiday season, and what better than a good read to fill the long hours before the grind of work begins once again!

But just in case you are in a hurry and care to put up with my crude and flawed overview, here you are:

Jasanoff starts out:

“Long before the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, the anthrax attacks through the US mail, and the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, signs were mounting that America’s ability to create and operate vast technological systems had outrun her capacity for prediction and control.”

Looking back over 20 years of “ ‘normal accidents’, which were strung like dark beads through the latter years of the twentieth century and beyond” Jasanoff notes that

“Scientific and technical advances bring unquestioned benefits, but they also generate new uncertainties and failures, with the result that doubt continually undermines knowledge, and unforeseen consequences confound faith in progress.”

This opens up a discussion on risk, which Jasanoff argues, is not “a matter of simple probabilities, to be rationally calculated by experts and avoided in accordance with the cold arithmetic of cost-benefit analysis,” but rather is part of the human condition, and “woven into the very fabric of progress.”

“Critically important questions of risk management cannot be addressed by technical experts with conventional tools of prediction. Such questions determine not only whether we will get sick or die, and under what conditions, but also who will be affected and how we should live with uncertainty and ignorance. Is it sufficient, for instance, to assess technology’s consequences, or must we also seek to evaluate its aims? How should we act when the values of scientific inquiry appear to conflict with other fundamental social values? Has our ability to innovate in some areas run unacceptably ahead of our powers of control? Will some of our most revolutionary technologies increase inequality, promote violence, threaten cultures, or harm the environment? And are our institutions, whether national or supranational, up to the task of governing our dizzying technological capabilities?”

According to Jasanoff, effective technology management needs to go far beyond the “speaking truth to power” paradigm that still seems to link knowledge to power.  And in particular, greater accountability in the production and use of scientific knowledge is essential.

“Accountability in one or another form is increasingly seen as an independent criterion for evaluating scientific research and its technological applications, supplementing more traditional concerns with safety, efficacy, and economic efficiency.”

But how can new approaches to establishing and ensuring accountability be developed within the constrains of existing ways of doing business?  Jasanoff argued back in 2003 that the time was ripe for seriously re-evaluating existing models and approaches.  And at the close of 2008, her recommendations are all the more pertinent for a lack of enlightened progress in the intervening years.

From this starting point, Jasanoff develops the idea of “technologies of humility”—“social technologies” developed around a framework that poses “the questions we should ask of almost every human enterprise that intends to alter society: what is the purpose; who will be hurt; who benefits; and how can we know?”  These are presented as a counter-balance to what she refers to as the modern reliance on “technologies of hubris”—a command and control approach to science and technology that seeks to clear the way for science-driven innovation.  Instead, Jasanoff reasons that

“there is a need for ‘technologies of humility’ to complement the predictive approaches: to make apparent the possibility of unforeseen consequences; to make explicit the normative that lurks within the technical; and to acknowledge from the start the need for plural viewpoints and collective learning.”

In developing her ideas, Jasanoff highlights problems that continue to plague the sustainable development of emerging technologies—especially when it comes to addressing and managing potential risks.  In discussing the limitations of conventional peer review in the context of oversight and risk management, she notes that a spate of highly-publicized cases of alleged fraud in science in the 1980’s showed that

“regulatory science, produced to support governmental efforts to guard against risk, was fundamentally different from research driven by scientists’ collective curiosity.”

This is a lesson that the US government still seems to be struggling with—at least when it comes to nanotechnology—if the recent report from the National Academies of Science is anything to go by.

The issue of peer-review opens up the question of how science should be evaluated within different contexts.  Jasanoff remarks that, as new approaches to knowledge production are developed, so new ways of assessing quality are needed.

“Besides old questions about the intellectual merits of their work, scientists are being asked to answer questions about marketability, and the capacity of science to promote harmony and welfare.”

This is challenging the old way of doing things, and raising the need for new ways of ensuring socially responsive and responsible science and technology.  As Jasanoff points out, “science that draws strength from it’s socially-detached position is too frail to meet the pressures put upon it by modern society.”

The overarching message here—and Jasanoff delves deeper into the problems and potential solutions than these notes reflect—is that new approaches are needed to partnering with society in the science and technology enterprise.  And she reflects that

“while national governments are scrambling to create new participatory forms, there are signs that such changes may reach neither far enough nor deeply enough to satisfy the citizens of a globalizing world.”

Sobering words that are, if anything, more relevant now than they were five years ago.

But what is the solution?  Jasanoff develops four focal points for socially relevant and responsible science and technology—framing, vulnerability, distribution and learning.  These are packed terms, and you really need to read the paper to understand better what she is proposing.  But here are some pointers:

Framing: The quality of solutions to social problems depends on the way they are framed.  Get the framing wrong, and the solutions suffer.  Jasanoff argues that frame analysis—how you define and approach a problem—is a critically important yet neglected tool for policy-making, which would benefit from greater public input.

Vulnerability: Population-based approaches to risk assessment and management typically overlook the condition and perspectives of individuals, and in doing so underplay the importance of various socio-economic factors.  Jasanoff notes that through participation in the analysis of their own vulnerability, ordinary citizens may regain their status as active subjects, rather than remain objects in yet another expert discourse.

Distribution: Issues here stem from “end-of pipe” approaches to legitimizing science and technology advances, and disconnects between groups that benefit from advances, and those that pay for them.  Jasanoff suggests that sustained interactions between decision-makers, experts and citizens, starting at the upstream end of research and development, could yield significant dividends in exposing the distributive implications of innovation.

Learning: There’s a tendency within the science and technology community to think that increased learning reduces divergence in opinions—as if there is one true “answer,” and more learning is the means to discovering it (see Kahan el al. in particular on this).  But as Jasanoff points out, experience is subject to many interpretations—as much in policy-making as in literary or historical analysis.  In other words, while the science might be clear, the decisions it leads to rarely are.  Jasanoff recommends that new avenues be designed through which societies can collectively reflect on the ambiguity of their experiences, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of alternative explanations.

Looking through Jasanoff’s recommendations, her emphasis on citizen participation in governing science and technology comes to the fore.  It is clear—from her perspective—that old-style command and control models of science and technology innovation no longer work, and that change is needed.

Sadly, in the US at least, we seem no closer to making progress than we were five years ago.  The recent National Academies report on the US government’s nanotechnology risk-research strategy indicated that, despite huge efforts to get things right within the federal government, outmoded paradigms and bureaucratic constraints undermined the whole process.  And movement on citizen participation in governing nanotechnology is near non-existent—despite clear calls for progress to be made in the 2003 Twenty First Century nanotechnology R&D Act.

And nanotechnology provides just one example—emerging technologies like synthetic biology, and the convergence between nanotech, biotech and information tech, are poised to stress the system to a far greater extent than nanotechnology alone has so far done.  How then will our “technologies of hubris” cope?

The solution is to rethink the interface—or contract if you like—between science and society.  When better to start this process of rethinking than with a fresh new science and technology-focused administration.  And where better to start with Jasanoff’s technologies of humility.

And those three papers that started this rather side-tracked discussion?  I must beg Dan, Dietram and Nick’s forgiveness because, excellent and relevant as their papers are, I have run out of space!

Instead, I would direct you to Richard Jones’ excellent Nature editorial on the three papers, together with his blog at Soft Machines.  Or if you prefer a raunchier style of commentary, check out Tim Harpur’s thoughts at TNTlog.

And as you read both the papers and the commentaries, think about what might need to change for these insights to lead to more socially integrated science and technology development.

____________

Endnotes

The three Nature Nanotechnology papers I woefully neglected to comment on are:

Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2008). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.362.

Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E. and Shirley S. Ho, S. S. (2008). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.361.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. and Cohen, G. (2008). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.341.

Sheila Jasanoff’s 2003 paper is:

Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223-244. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025557512320

]]> http://2020science.org/2008/12/24/a-manifesto-for-socially-relevant-science-and-technology/feed/ 8 http://2020science.org/2008/12/20/obama-staking-out-a-science-and-technology-presidency/ http://2020science.org/2008/12/20/obama-staking-out-a-science-and-technology-presidency/#comments Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:57:47 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=607

John Holdren is confirmed as the next Assistant to the President for Science and Technology

Barack Obama is serious about science and technology.  It was clear in the campaign; clear in the President-Elect’s policies, and doubly clear in the speed with which he has established scientific leadership for the incoming administration.

Today’s official announcement that John Holdren is being appointed Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (which in addition to re-establishing a cabinet-level S&T asvisor, includes Hodren being Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), puts the finishing touches to what many would consider a “dream team” for leading science and technology that serves society.

But just as important as the team is the philosophy behind it.  In today’s address (which as usual is viewable on YouTube), Obama emphasized clearly the importance of science and technology in tackling national and global challenges:

“Whether it’s the science to slow global warming; the technology to protect our troops and confront bioterror and weapons of mass destruction; the research to find life-saving cures; or the innovations to remake our industries and create twenty-first century jobs—today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.”

But he also was also clear on the importance of science and evidence-based decision-making in society:

“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” President-elect Obama said. “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.”

This is a profoundly important position to take as the US squares up to take on some of the biggest challenges ever faced by humanity.  High on the list are hunger, disease, access to clean water, energy, security, and climate change.  And these are being driven by a growing global population, increasing quality of life expectations, and a closer-than-ever coupling between human actions and global responses.

Science and technology are only part of the solution to these issues—but it is near impossible to imagine how progress can be made without the generation of new knowledge, and its innovative application in making people’s lives better.

The challenge for Holdren and the rest of Obama’s science and technology team will be to make-good on the new administration’s aims; through providing advice, crafting policies and taking action that will lead to science-led solutions to these and other issues.

The good news is that the incoming team members seem to have what it takes.  Jonathan Moreno, editor-in-chief of Science Progress, has described them as “surely the most distinguished group of scientists at the highest levels of government in decades.”

Of course, this is just the beginning—it’s yet to be seen how this “dream team” will work together and help ensure science and technology are used to the full, while avoiding the problems that poorly-conceived scitech innovation can sometimes throw up.

But for now, the future is looking pretty bright for science and technology.

______________________________________

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMlXNrBxM0g&eurl=http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/the_search_for_knowledge_truth_and_a_greater_understanding_of_the_world_aro/]

The pains and pleasures of tweeting science and technology innovation, 140 characters at a time.

Five days, 539 words and 3,447 characters later, the Twitter experiment is over. Did I succeed in communicating on emerging science and technology in 700 characters a day?  I’m not sure.  The whole exercise was harder than I expected.  Trying to come up with something interesting and relevant five times a day was a challenge.  Thursday was a particularly tough day—and the entries show it!

But at the end of the exercise, I must admit it was fun.  And even though tweeting will never supplant full-on blogging for communicating stuff in depth, it clearly has a place.

I’m not sure I would do a five-day stint like this again, but the medium is clearly open to innovative use.  And with some thought, could be used to convey more complex information than trivial thoughts and web links.  Personally, I think my writing-style took a dive with the constraints imposed by the character-limit and serial-posts.  But I was surprised at how much could be crammed into 140 characters, with some thought.  And while the experiment had many flaws, I think there is scope to use Twitter and similar formats in ways that lead to engagement on issues with some depth.

As a result of the “experiment,” I will be playing around more with my “tweets” over the coming weeks.  You may have noticed the new “microblog” on the sidebar to 2020science, that will allow my progress to be monitored closely!

At the end of the day though, the real test is whether you, the readers, are convinced that science and technology can be conveyed in bite-sized chunks.

If you missed all the excitement, you can re-live it at the end of this email—all 25 tweets neatly laid out and ready to be mercilessly dissected!  Did I embarrass myself?  Did I miss the point of tweeting entirely, Was this an exercise destined to failure.  Or was there a hint that Twitter—and other microblogs—can be used in innovative ways to convey information?  Comments please!

In the meantime, some reflections of my own:

What I liked:

• The discipline and challenge of conveying useful information in a few brief characters.
• Watching my thoughts and ideas develop on the fly.
• The immediacy of the medium.
• The possibility of plugging into and engaging with people in a wide social network.

What I didn’t like:

• Not being able to add links to posts (this was a self-imposed restriction, that I broke once, but links just suck up too many of the precious 140 characters—even small ones).
• Not being able to scrub the whole chain of tweets and start again.
• Running out of characters when I couldn’t quite fit an idea into the space.
• Having to continue feeding the beast when all hell was breaking loose elsewhere… (another self-imposed rule).
• Having to decide between maintaining a flow of ideas over several tweets, and replying to other tweeters—which would have disrupted the flow.

The tweets in full:

Monday:

Why invest in science and technology? “Innovation” you are supposed to reply. But is scitech innovation all it’s cracked up to be?

Scitech innovation is clearly crucial to tackling issues that conventional tech falls short on – climate, energy, healthcare, clean water

And I’m pretty sure scitech innovation is a critical economic driver – new knowledge and know-how can add tremendous value to raw materials

OK so scitech innovation is important – just thought I would get that out of the way up-front. Next question – how do you get it right?

Answer: Keep the scitech pipeline flowing, enable tech transfer, and ensure “safe” use – sounds like something for the new stimulus package!

Tuesday:

And the important scitec? Making stuff at the nanoscale (bio and non-bio), info gen/flow/use, and mashing it all up together (convergence)

Nanotech: making stuff that does stuff at the nanoscale; is already extending the reach of conventional tech. And you aint seen nothing yet

Small changes at the nanoscale can have profound impacts – think computers, data storage, super-strong lightweight materials, targeted drugs

Question is, how do we ensure we get the biggest bang for the buck from nanotechnology – without creating more problems than we solve?

Three steps which I suspect are key to realizing nanotech’s potential: relevant research, effective tech transfer, and responsive oversight.

Wednesday:

Hot off the press: according to the National Academies the feds are still struggling with getting safe nano right: http://tinyurl.com/5mnxk9

But that’s an aside, because today I wanted to focus on playing with biology at the nanoscale, and specifically on synthetic biology.

Drew Endy: “Biology is nanotechnology that works.” If we can engineer bio like we do non-bio, is this a shortcut to some advanced nanotech?

Imagine being able to program living things through their DNA to do specific things – generate energy, synthesize fuels, construct materials

That’s where we are heading with synbio – a powerful mix of engineering and biology. Transformative stuff, but ethically complex I suspect!

Thursday:

Strip away the soft squidgy stuff and synbio is all about manipulating, transmitting and utilizing information; information tech writ small

Information provides meaning to things. Which means that innovation in info generation, interpretation, use etc commands a high premium.

Information storage – could you live without your computer, TiVo, iPod, iPhone, digital camera, on-line repository of digital bric-a-brac?

Information use – humans and machines are becoming nodes in a rapidly evolving and growing global “digital brain” – and innovation is rife!

Information technology is an incredible powerhouse of innovation that is evolving at breakneck speed; adding value, while challenging norms.

Friday:

Separately, info nano and biotech have tremendous potential. But when they interact and overlap, innovation explodes. This is convergence.

Innovation most readily flourishes at the interface between disciplines/technologies/ideas – you know that. This is where the sparks fly.

But innovation at scitech interfaces isn’t easy. The sparks of new ideas are delicate, and easily doused by old ways of thinking and working

On the other hand, when convergent innovation gets going, it can burn like wildfire (internet, ICE?). Then the name of the game is control.

So back to the original Q’s: why invest in scitech, and what is needed for success? In 32 characters: Necessity, imagination & wisdom. OK?

The National Research Council of the National Academies releases its review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research.  And it’s not pretty.

Most people acknowledge that innovation is vital to economic and social prosperity.  But what do you do when science and technology innovation are in danger of being stymied by bad habits and misguided thinking?  One solution: apply a little tough love.  Something a new report from the US National Academies does in spades.

By the end of the next US administration, there will be an estimated seven billion people on the planet, all wanting food, shelter, and water, and most of them striving for a first-world quality of life.  With dwindling natural resources and an environment struggling to absorb humanity’s assaults, old technologies are coming to the end of their shelf life.   Energy security, curing cancer, quality of life in old age, plentiful clean water, climate change—none of these challenges will be met without science and technology innovation.

More to the point, without a constant stream of science and technology innovation, the economy will be starved of the knowledge-capital so desperately needed for stability and growth.

Given this backdrop, you would think that the US federal government would be on top of spotting and navigating around potential barriers to innovation.  Yet according to a new report from the National Research Council of the National Academies, the feds seem to have their collective heads in the sand when it comes to ensuring investment in science and technology research delivers sustainable results…

The new report specifically addresses nanotechnology.  And it focuses on federal government plans to address potential risks associated with this emerging technology.  But the cracks in the system it reveals are most likely endemic across all areas of science and technology innovation.

Nanotechnology is at the forefront of a handful of emerging technologies that are poised to underpin science and technology innovation over the coming decade.  By gaining increasing control over matter at the scale of atoms and molecules, scientists are opening the doors to technology innovations undreamed of a few years back—computers that run on light; drugs that seek out and destroy cancer cells; batteries that out-perform fossil-fuel alternatives; intelligent packaging that lets you know when food is contaminated.  And these are just the tip of the iceberg.  Lux Research estimates that within five years, over $3 trillion worth of goods sold globally will owe part of their value to nanotechnology.  And while different analysts come up with different projections, it’s hard to escape the potential of nanotechnology to make a significant difference on the world stage.

Yet if this potential is to be realized, innovative science will need to be transformed into innovative technology.  And here’s the rub: if the new technology isn’t safe, isn’t perceived to be safe, or is plagued by uncertainty over how to use it safely, it will be stymied.  And the economic and societal benefits will dwindle from a flood to a trickle.

Already some early nanotechnology-based developments are plagued by uncertainty over potential risks.  Carbon nanotubes for instance—a tremendously exciting new material with applications from super-strong materials to next-generation electronics—have a passing resemblance to asbestos fibers in some configurations.  And a lack of clear information on how to use them safely is dogging a nascent nanotube industry.

Unfortunately the federal government is still struggling to provide the necessary health and safety research and oversight to underpin effective nanotechnology innovation.  The just-released National Academies report reviews the federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research. And the conclusion:  There is no strategy!

This is bad news for science and technology innovation, bad news for the economy, and bad news for anyone concerned with climate change, disease treatment, and a whole host of other issues.  Because if we cannot work out the rules of safe use for this new technology, what hope have we of using it to our advantage?

The fifteen person-strong National Academies panel, of which I was a member, unanimously recommended a National Strategy be developed for nanotechnology risk research, that will allow stakeholders to pool their collective wisdom in coming up with a plan for ensuring the long-term success of nanotechnology-based innovation.

But this is only part of the solution to making sure nanotechnology and other emerging technologies succeed.  To turn things around and get science and technology innovation back on track, some tough love is needed.  And that means facing some home truths, and getting rid of some bad habits.

Top of the list of bad habits is a tendency to treat risk-focused studies as economy-class research.  Research into understanding and mitigating potential risks arising from emerging technologies is key to success in innovation. And the more innovative the technologies being developed, the more innovative the risk-research needed to use them wisely.

Then there is a fear of commitment (aka accountability and responsibility).  Even though nanotechnology risk-research dollars are pitifully small compared to overall investment in nanotech R&D, there is a reticence to ensure even these meager dollars are used wisely and responsibly.

Of course, getting federal agencies to work together is tougher than herding cats.  But by developing effective collaborations and partnerships between agencies and with non-government stakeholders, institutional barriers that inhibit effective science and technology innovation can be overcome.

However, such partnerships will depend on a master-plan—which is where a national research strategy is needed.

Third in the catalogue of bad habits is fiscal tight-fistedness.  In the US, the federal government will be stretched to underpin successful nanotechnology innovation without investing between $50 million – $100 million more per year in nanotechnology risk research.  This needs to be targeted toward agencies that can use it to generate useful information.

Some ideas on how this might be done in the short term have just been posted on the web by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.  But in the long term, a National Research Strategy is needed to guide future R&D investment and direction.

I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that nanotechnology and other emerging technologies are vital to the future economic and social well-being of the United States and other countries.  Yet without an ability to spot potential barriers to their development and find innovative solutions to overcome them, we’re never going to get there.

And, quite frankly, the previous US administration blew it—the National Academies report reveals a naïve and blinkered perspective on establishing a research agenda that supports science and technology innovation.

However, it’s time to draw a line under the past mis-steps, and make a fresh start. With President-Elect Obama’s emphasis in science and technology in the US, there is a chance to move on from the muddle of the past and take clear steps towards enabling emerging technologies that that do more good than harm, and that stimulate the economy while helping to address national and global challenges.

Tough love is never comfortable.  But it usually leads to change for the better.  And in the case of nanotechnology, getting health and safety research right will mean that everyone benefits in the end.

Getting serious with Twitter

I’m gutted.  I thought that blogging was where it is at—the cutting edge of the “new media” wave transforming modern communication.  But I now discover that I’m at least four years behind the times—a veritable dinosaur in the world of “Web 2.0!”

Which is why I’m pushing myself out on a limb with a bold experiment in social network communication this week!

November’s edition of Wired Magazine ran a story entitled “Twitter, Flickr, Facebook Make Blogs Look So 2004.” And just in case you didn’t get the message about blogging from the title, the opening paragraph rammed it home:

“Thinking about launching your own blog? Here’s some friendly advice: Don’t. And if you’ve already got one, pull the plug.”

The blogosphere is being deluged by a stream of “paid bilge” according to the article… drowning out the voices of original writers.  But as one form of self-expression becomes overwhelmed, others emerge—and social networking sites like YouTube, Flickr and Facebook are where the action is these days.

Add to that list Twitter—a high profile “microblogging” site that is attracting a growing following.  According to Wired,

“Twitter … is to 2008 what the blogosphere was to 2004.”

However, Twitter limits posts to text messages no longer than 140 characters—including spaces.  Great for letting friends and family know you have just had your first coffee of the day.  But what if you want to impart some slightly more substantive words of wisdom?

I suspect that web-based social networking is in danger of flooding our lives with trivia, making it increasingly hard to assimilate and make use of complex information.  Yet if this is where people are exchanging ideas and “hanging out” these days, perhaps it’s time to experiment with using the “new” new media, rather than simply dismissing it.

And so for the next five days—starting Monday—I propose to roll up my sleeves and attempt some serious “twittering.”

Here’s the plan:  Between Monday December 8 and Friday December 12, I aim to submit five non-trivial posts a day to the 2020science Twitter feed that tackle emerging science and technology issues—that’s emerging science and technology at 700 characters per day!

You can follow my progress at http://twitter.com/2020science.  You can even sign up with Twitter and comment directly on the posts—as long as you keep within 140 characters!

I suspect I’m setting myself up for failure here.  But I did want to see whether it’s possible to convey something meaningful within the attention-span of today’s web-users.  Because—and this is probably important—as more and more people become part of the digital sound-bite community, effective communication will depend on working within the new media—despite its flaws.

Happy Twittering!

(Expressed in 2720 characters – including spaces)

I’m sitting here putting the finishing touches to 2020science.org—a new science blog—and having the latest in a long stream of panic attacks: What on earth am I doing? Who wants to read yet another tedious list of personal musings, what makes me think I have anything interesting to say, and where did I get the delusion that I can actually write anyway?

As I type this, the answers are crystal clear: Everyone’s surely too busy to read yet another blog (especially one biased towards responsible science and technology); in the cold light of reality I most likely have the wit of a 5 watt light bulb; and I should have listened to my freshman college tutor, who was definitely under no illusion about whether I could write!

Yet under the remote possibility that my perception is temporarily impaired, it’s worth examining exactly why I am putting myself through this ordeal.

Last September, I was asked to contribute on an occasional basis to the SAFENANO blog—a U.K.-based initiative dedicated to underpinning the safe development and use of nanotechnologies.  Rather foolishly, I set myself the task of contributing to the blog an average of once a week.  The rationale was simple: it forced me to keep abreast of the latest progress in developing safe nanotechnologies; the format allowed me to explore some as-yet half baked but nevertheless interesting ideas; and there was the hope that trying to produce something original and readable on a weekly basis might just teach me a thing or two.  And as an added bonus, there was always the possibility of someone actually reading the stuff I posted!

That was a year ago, and by on large I have kept to the self-imposed writing task.  And in doing so, I have discovered that I actually quite like the discipline of blogging.  I have also discovered in the process that there is more I want to write about than the folks at SAFENANO would probably be comfortable with (although I must confess, a few fringe-blogs did slip through the net this last year).  And so was born the idea of a new blog; one that would give me the freedom to go beyond the bound of what a respectable nanotechnology safety blog could accommodate.

Having reached this point, two challenges arose almost immediately:  A relatively easy one—what to write about; and a much tougher one—what to call the new blog!

The first challenge led me back to what interests me, and what I want to achieve through writing about it.  The interest can be summed up fairly simply: How can science and technology be used most effectively in the service of society? But this deceptively simple question hides many complex issues, including:

• Does the current way that we “do science” give us a good return on the investment?
• How is cool science best translated into constructive technologies?
• How are the potential downsides of emerging technologies best dealt with?
• What role should citizens, industry, government and (of course) academics play in determining the future course of science and technology?
• How do you engage everyday people in science?
• And just as importantly: How do you engage scientists in society?

These and similar questions provide a rich landscape to explore. But more critically, they are important questions that need clear answers if we are to ensure the most responsible use of science and technology in a shrinking world with a growing population.  Safe nanotechnology is a part of this landscape.  But the issues extend beyond the science and technology of the small, to areas as diverse as research strategies, public engagement, ethics, and even religion.

So much for the content, but what should such a wide-ranging blog be called?  Tricky one!  Smartscience.org was at the top of the list, but someone smarter than me got there first.  Thecivicscientist.org got some serious attention, but was vetoed for veering towards being over-earnest, and being something of a turn-off to anyone who has suffered through tedious “civics” lessons.  Things got so desperate that even options like sciencepunk.org weren’t dismissed entirely out of hand (in the end, my wife drew the line at this one!).

2020science.org was something of a compromise—embodying the idea of looking forward with clarity, while being easy to type.  Not the best perhaps, but fit for purpose I think.

Which brings me back to my original question: is this really a good idea?

I’m still not entirely sure it is.  But having thought through why I started out on this venture, I think it is worth a shot.  Developing a healthy relationship between science, technology and society is important—increasingly so as the challenge of ensuring an acceptable quality of life for all in the 21st century is going to depend increasingly on emerging technologies.  I may not be the brightest bulb in the drawer, and I still have a trick or two to learn about communicating effectively.  But exploring how as a society we can use science and technology wisely is my job—it’s what I do as Chief Science Advisor at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, and what I spend most of my time engaged in.

And if most people are too busy for yet another blog?  Well, I can always fall back on the defence that it’s the discipline of writing that matters, not the readership.  That is, until I suffer the next panic attack!

_____________________________
Postscript

While 2020science.org is now my blogging home, I will continue to write the occasional guest blog for SAFENANO—still one of the foremost sources of nano health and safety info. on the web!

Even though writing under the banner of “thecivicscientist.org” was dropped, it’s only fair to say Neal Lane’s concept of the Civic Scientist will have a pronounced influence on this weblog.  More of this in later posts…  (I should also come clean and admit that there is already a “civic scientist” blogger out there).

At the time of writing, wordpress.com—the host site for this blog—was hosting 4,175,409 blogs, and reporting 127,651 new postings; containing 31,979,307 words.  This post represents an additional 900 words—a stunningly small 0.003% of the day’s output.  No wonder I’m having panic attacks!  Time to reach for the brown bag again I think…